1920-05-26

PAPERS TABLED.

[Stage Direction]
Copies o-f Mortgage Deeds by the Canadian Northern Railway Company, 1918-19.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. CAS  GRAIN@: Now that a decision has been rendered by the Supreme Court, is it the intention of the Government to introduce any legislation at this session in regard to the control of papers and newsprint?
Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime
Minister): Any necessary announcement in regard to this matter will be made in due course.


BUTTER AND MARGARINE - FOOD VALUES.
Mr. GERVAIS:: 1.	What is the nutritive value of butter, expressed in calories, according to Government analysis ?
2.	What is the value of oleomargarine?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	Butter.-Calories per lb., 3558.92; calories per kilog., (2.2 lbs.), 7829.62.
2.	Oleomargarine. - Calories per lb., 3699.70; calories per kilog., 8139.34.
These answers are given both in calories by pound and calories by kilogram.


MR. WALTER DUNCAN.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Is Walter Duncan, now in the employ of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the individual on whose conduct and character an inquiry was held whilst he was chief of detectives of Toronto?
2.	Was the department aware of the result of that inquiry when this man was appointed?
3.	In view of the fact that at the said inquiry several witnesses gave evidence doubting his veracity, is it the intention of the Government to keep him on the staff of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes. Mr. Walter Duncan holds an honourable discharge from the Ohief -Constable, after thirty years' service in the Toronto

force, and the highest recommendations from the Police Magistrate, the County Crown Attorney and the Chief Constable of the city of Toronto, and has proved himself a most efficient special agent.


BAGOT COUNTY-POSTAL INSPECTION.
Mr. MARCILE (Bagot):: 1.	Has the county of Bagot been transferred, for postal inspection purpose, from the district of Montreal to the district of Sherbrooke?
2.	If so, why?
3.	Who asked for said transfer, for what purpose and who recommended said change?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	In the interests of the Postal Service.
3.	Transfer made towards equalizing the territory of Post Office Inspectorates and improving the service.


BURBIDGE-MESSINES.
Mr. BALL:: 1.	Is there a station on the Maniwaki Division of the Canadian Pacific railway known as Burbidge?
2.	Has the name of the post office at Burbidge been changed?
3.	If so, when, and what is the present name?
4.	At whose instance was the change of name made?
5.	Was it done on the recommendation or with the concurrence of the member for Wright county ?
6.	Was the original name Burbidge given in honour of the first judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada?
7.	What are the reasons for substituting another name?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	1st January, 1920, to Messines.
4.	A petition was received from the majority of the residents of the place, advocating the change.
5.	No.
6.	Yes.
7.	The request of the majority of the patrons of the office.


INTERNATIONAL PARLIAMENTARY CONFERENCE ON COMMERCE.
[Stage Direction]
*Mr, ARMSTRONG (Lambton):
Will the Government submit to Parliament at this session a copy of the report of the International Parliamentary Conference on Commerce which closed on May 7th instant, after having adopted a series of resolutions, the first of which requested that international legislation be enacted to control responsibility in sea transportation?
Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: Mr. Speaker, the Government was not represented at this Conference and had no connection with it. No copy of the report of
the Conference has been received by the Government. If a copy should be received, there will be no objection to making it available for the use of any hon. member who may desire to peruse it. It does not, however, seem to be a report which would in the ordinary course be submitted to Parliament.


NEUVILLE STATION, C.N.R.
Mr. PARENT:: 1.	Is is true (a) that the Canadian Northern railway station at Neuville, county of West Quebec, has no telephone accommodation; (6) that, consequently, this state of affairs is very inconvenient to the travelling public; (o) that twenty odd dollars would be sufficient to provide this improvement to the service?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the Government to take steps to remedy such a situation?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	There is a telephone in Neuville station.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


ROSS RIFLE FACTORY.
Mr. BUREAU:: 1.	What was the inventory value of the machinery in the Ross rifle factory at Quebec when taken over by the Government?
2.	What amount has been received from the sale of this machinery up to the end of the last fiscal year?
3.	Was said machinery and other physical assets of the plant disposed of by public tender, . through commission agents or by private sale?
4.	What method is being adopted at present in regard to the disposal of machinery still on hand?
5.	Who is the officer in charge, where and on whose recommendation was he appointed?
6.	What prior experience has he had in regard to the valuation and disposal of machinery?
7.	Has the Government a special auditor at the plant to check up prices, methods of sale and amounts received from the assets disposed of?
8.	Is it true that some of the machinery in the plant has been broken up and sold as scrap metal instead of being sold intact at present market value?


Hon. Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1. The Canadian Apprisal Company made inventory values as follows:
Reproductive value	$875,000
Sales value	$500,000
2.	Approximately $400,000.
3.	The means adopted for the sale of the machinery and other assets of the plant were intended to meet conditions as they occurred, and are as follows:
(a)	By the circulation of printed lists;
(b)	By advertising;
(c)	By assistance from machinery firms;
(d)	By personal calls and correspondence.

4.	Machinery is now being sold as in " 3 " above, and in accordance with a price list.
5.	Mr. W. S. Fisher is the commissioner in charge, and was appointed by Order in Council in April, 1917.
6.	He has wide business experience in foundry and hardware business.
7.	No. Systematic auditing is carried out by departmental auditors, and a special audit on the premises is made periodically.
8.	Yes, a few special machines have been
broken up and sold as scrap. However, these were of special design for the manufacture of Ross rifles, and, being absolutely useless for any other purpose, were unsaleable.	'	1 3


EDMUNDSTON POST OFFICE AND CUSTOMS.
Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	How much money was collected from the Collector of Customs at Edmundston, N.B., during the last fiscal year?
2.	How much money was paid by the Postmistress at Edmundston, N.B., to the Post Office Department during the last fiscal year?


Rt. Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: 1.	?25,283.19.
2.	$6,649.75.


MR. J. E. SMITH.
Mr. DEMERS:: 1.	Is Mr. J. E. Smith at present with the auditor of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment at Montreal, the same person who- once held the position of chief accountant of that department in Ottawa?
2.	What salary did he previously receive and what does he receive at present?
3.	For what reason was he transferred to Montreal?
4.	In what country was he born?
5.	Has he seen service at the front, during the last war?
6.	On whose recommendation was he appointed in Montreal?


Mr. HUGH CLARK (Parliamentary Secretary):: 1.	Mr. J. E. Smit, who was recently appointed Unit Auditor of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment at Montreal was previously acting chief accountant of the department in Ottawa.
2.	$2,500 per annum, which he will continue to receive as Unit Auditor.
3.	The position of auditor in a Unit requires a detailed knowledge of the procedure of all branches of the department. . In this respect, Mr. Smit, who has been 3) years in the accounting branch at head office, is thoroughly qualified and most suitable for this position, to which he has accordingly been transferred.

4.	England.
5.	No. Mr. Smit was horn a British subject. His parents who were Dutch toy birth became naturalized British citizens. He has resided in Canada for over twelve years, is 45 years of age, married and has four children. His wife is English by birth and parentage.
6.	On the recommendation of the Supervisor of Expenditures of the department.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.

[u'In one of his most amusing pages which at the same time is most pregnant with philosophy and creative imagination, Rabelais describes Master Gas-ter, the personification, of the stomach and of those appetites which to many are the very centre of the universe.\t[DOT]\n"I assure you," he says, "that when. Master \xa9aster gives a command the heavens tremble, the earth quakes. His command is uttered; it must be obeyed without delay, else death will ensue."\nAnd Rabelais parades before us all Creation: men, animals of every description, the willing slaves of Master Gaster, eager to serve him. And the prodigious nomenclature of all these beings in bondage under the sway of the lower appetites, is interrupted, at regular intervals, by the words, *ever recurrent, like a sort of refrain: "and all for the stomach."\nYou readily discern, Mr. .Speaker, my reason for recalling this page of Rabelais\'. The ,Caster of our political life is the Union (Government which holds out to its supporters the alluring promises\' of power .and honour with, to boot, the gratification of their gluttonous appetites. The Ministry\'s partisans bow to the sceptre of this modern Gaster so as to remain in close proximity to the Pork Barrel; "\'and all for the stomach," say we with Rabelais.\n\nBefore our very eyes the Tory-Conserva-tives with their former opponents; lay aside their hoary grudges and conclude an alliance with the antagonists they have always hated and always fought, they wanted to get into power, and to-day they are striving to remain there. They are under the thumb of Master Gaster who loosens the reins on their appetites: "and all for the stomach."\nWe behold former Nationalists who only yesterday were widely denouncing all they worship to-day, take their place at the manger and bury their heads in the feast: "and all for the stomach."\nWe see Liberals, unfaithful to their pledge trampling on their principles, forgetting the past, deaf to the voice of conscience- "a famished stomach cannot hear"-enter a morganatic alliance with the Tories and bow to the rule of Master Gaster, viz., of their selfish appetites: "and all for the stomach."\nAnd you see wealthy capitalists, trust magnates, profiteers of every description, kowtow to the Union Government to Master Gaster: "and all for the stomach."\nAye, "all for the stomach;" the Union Government exists for nothing else.\nThe present Government, has become so discredited in the eyes of the people of this country that we are all at a loss to understand how it has managed to hold onto ofiiee thus far. Those who support it and help to keep it in power, in spite of the will of our people, harken only to the lust of power and to their appetites that crave satisfaction.\n"All for the stomach." There in four words, you have the definition of the present Union Government. In those words, so full of Rabelaisian flavour, you have the origin anid the end of this Government; Master Gaster surrounded by the Unionists, insatiable Garga.ntuas.\nThe stomach has its tragedy. " There is a heroism of the stomach, .said Victor Hugo; and the Unionists believe they are heroes because they make their conscience and their principles subservient to their appetites.\nUnion Government is merely the representative of certain factions; hence it fears the judgment of the nation as a whole. The Government represents Imperialism more than Ganadianism, the manufacturer rather than the consumer, the profiteer in preference to the victimized masses of the people. That is not- what their country is asking for.\' In the words of Gambetta: "Ideas create parties; interests create factions "\nThe explanation of the dignity and smooth \' running regularity of the constitutional regime in England for generations is undoubtedly to be found in the fact that the popular representatives were divided into two great. Parties, the Whigs and the Tories, each in turn being raised to power by the movements of public opinion under the moderating influence of the Crown. On the other hand if parliamentary government has often hung by only a hair\'s breadth in Spain aind Italy the reason is to be found in this mania for change which split up the great historical parties into insignificant personal cliques thus paving the way for anarchy.\nWe must chose one or the other of these iJ.wo systems. The Liberals prefer the method of government by powerful parties, parties not only in name, but founded o\'n \' [DOT]\'\'.early set forth opinion and a well-defined policy, and whose members willingly submit to the iron hand of discipline which is essential to true freedom. The tenets of the Liberal party, Mr. Speaker, are far above all those factions whose policies are guided solely bv their own private interests.\nThe Unionist group is something in the nature of a "crazy quilt"-I crave your indulgence for the expression, Mr. \'Speaker; it has none of the characteristics of a great political party. The Union Government- is well aware of its own weakness and with good cause from the judgment of the people whom it has -deceived and whom it is how trying to avoid.\nThe illustrious tutor of one the Dukes of Burgundy wras wont to admonish his pupil in these words: "Remember, my child that a King is made for his people, not. the people for their King."\nThose responsible for the present maladministration of our suffering Canada\'s affairs have forgotten that governments ar-e made for the people and not the people for governments. Perhaps these Unionist gentlemen believe that this principle was destroyed in the awful upheaval of which the world has not, even yet, -seen the end. Let me tell them they are wrong. Like many -other ephemeral leaders they are due to learin that the multitude knows its rights as well as its duties -and that, in this new day the knell of absolutism in the conduct of affairs of state, has sounded.\nOn motion of Hon. Mr. Lemieux the debate was adjourned.\nOn motion of Rt. Hon. IMr. Doherty the House adjourned nt !2 05 a.m. (Thursday).', 'Thursday, May 27, 1920.']
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: What were the average prices paid for anthracite coal in Canada in the years 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917. 1918 and 1919?



Mr. ROBB (for Mr. Parent):: For a copy of the Orders in Council: (a) concerning the establishment and the administration of a Board of Censors, (to) rules and instructions relating to said board, (c) letters and correspondence exchanged between the newspapers of Canada and abroad and said Board of Censors, or any of its members.


James Alexander Robb: For a copy of all telegrams, letters and other documents relating to the closing of the life saving station at Cheticamp, Inverness County, N.S.


James Alexander Robb: For a copy of all telegrams, letters and other documents referring to the application for the change in the site of the Sootch Hill post office, Inverness County, N.S.


James Alexander Robb: For a copy of all correspondence, petitions, reports and other documents regarding the establishment of rural mail routes in the parishes of Champlain, Batiscan and St. Due, in the County of Champlain, Quebec.


James Alexander Robb: For a copy of all correspondence, documents, telegrams and affidavits passed between the Minister of Railways and Canals and Mr. Arcade Bissonnette and others, in connection with complaints made against M. St. Amour, Superintendent of the Soulanges Canal.


FURTHER LEGISLATION FOR THIS SESSION.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:	,
Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: I would like to ask my right hon. friend (Sir Robert Borden) if 'the House has 'before it notice of all the legislation which the Government intends to introduce at this session, or whether further legislation will Ibe brought down?


Right Hon.   S@: That matter is not yet absolutely determined. I hope to be able to make an announcement to- my hon. friend in a day o-r two..


MORNING SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. R. L. RICHARDSON (Springfield):: Have the Government any announcement to make in -regard to morning sittings? There has -been practically little or no committee work during this session, and there is very little -now, and, in the historic phrase of the Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid), "We want to go home."


Air. SPEAKER:: If the horn, member will refer to the Votes and Proceedings he will find that there is a notice of motion covering his question.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I had not noticed it.


THE BUDGET.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, May 25th, the debate on the motion of Sir Henry Drayton (Minister of Finance) that Air. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Hon. W. -S. Fielding.
Air. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: Monsieur l'Orateur-
Some hon. AIEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on in French.


John Wesley Edwards: The hon. member for
LTslet (Mr. Fafard) having opened his speech in English and closed it in English, I thought that I should show appreciation of that courtesy by opening my remarks in the language which falls with such melody from the lips of hon. gentlemen opposite, and I will endeavour to close my remarks in the same language. '
Notwithstanding the very violent remarks that were made by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) in opposition to the Budget introduced by the Finance Minister (Sir Henry Drayton) I venture to express my general approval of that Budget, and I wish also to extend to the Finance Minister my congratulations on the ability, courage and candour which he displayed in introducing the Budget. I entirely commend him for removing the 5 per cent and 7J per cent special war tax or revenue tax; which tax was never intended for any other than revenue purposes. I can understand that with the pressing needs of the country for additional revenue there would be strong inclination on the part of the Government to retain that tax. But its retention would have been a great mistake and open to misinterpretation; furthermore, its removal clears the way for that general revision of the tariff which has been promised and which will come a little later. I also wish to commend the Finance Minister in that he is taking steps to raise his revenue by a tax on what may be regarded as luxuries,-at least, by a tax which will rest upon those who are most able to pay it.
The amendment introduced by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) starts out with finding fault with the Government for not having carried out an alleged promise of the ex-Finance Min-isted (Sir Thomas White) last year in regard to an inquiry which was to be made and followed by a revision of the tariff. The attitude of the member for Shelburne and Queen's in that regard is all the -more remarkable when we remember his attitude on tariff revisions in former years. If you refer to the Budget Speech delivered by the member for Shelburne and Queen's in 1904, you will find a reference to tariff revision in these words:
But, sir, though we speak of that as an outline of the method by which there might be a detailed tariff change, we have to consider the question of things as they are to-day. We desire to deal with certain tilings as they present themselves to us to-day; we desire to deal with matters of urgency, reserving the question of a more general and more detailed tariff revision until an early date-I would say, hopefully, next session, but at all events as soon as a proper inquiry can be made.
These remarks were uttered by the member for Shelburne and Queen's on June 7, 1904, when he was Finance Alinister of this country. I submit that in these remarks you have as distinct a promise of tariff revision as was made by the member for Leeds when Finance Alinister last year. No commission of inquiry was appointed

see him to-day. The hon. gentleman's course in the House is typical of his course in connection with fiscal matters; he moves somewhat in a circle. This fact was evidently recognized by the hon. member for Brome, who on the occasion to which I refer pictured the ship of state with the Acting Prime Minister the present member for Leeds (Sir Thomas White) as captain, who was being warned by the starboard watch and the .port watch. The hon. member then added these words:
Then approaches with swift tread the quartermaster from Shelburne and Queen's and he says: "Captain, I belong to neither the starboard nor to the port watch. I believe in party government, a party of one. I tender you, captain, my independent support until 1 consider it is time for me and my friends to unite and make you walk the plank.
To this statement the hon. member for Brome adds:
I do not know whether X can congratulate or commiserate the Acting Prime Minister, the captain of the ship, for the support he gets from the eloquent and revered quartermaster from Shelburne and Queen's.
L wonder just how much the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's thinks of the support which he gets now from .the hon. member for Brome in his amendment. That amendment of the hon. member for Brome on that occasion was opposed by all on this side of the House and, I think, by practically all of those who now sit in the .third party. I know it was opposed very strenuously by the hon. member for Bed Deer (Mr. Clark), the hon. .member for Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg), and the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar). All of these gentlemen voted, and .many of .them spoke, .against the amendment. What was said by the hon. member for Marquette on that occasion? What reason did he give for opposing the amendment of the hon. member or Brome,-an amendment which was proposing many things that are found in the platform of the third party to-day? He said, as will be found on page 821 of Hansard:
If the amendment were accepted it would mean the overthrow of the Government and a general election, with all the necessary turmoil that would ensue	I say that it
would mean the plunging of the country into a general election and that is not desirable at this stage. It is wholly undesirable for several reasons, which I do not need to enumerate.
He charges the hon. member for Brome with having introduced a resolution for no other purpose than to embarrass the Government in carrying on the business of the country. Well, I wonder what he considers is the object of the hon. member for Shel-

burne and Queen's in the amendment which that hon. gentleman has moved to this Budget? Is it not for the purpose of embarrassing the Government in their conduct of the business of the country? If accepted will it not put the country into the turmoil of a general election? All the reasons for which he condemned the motion of the hon. member for Brome in March 1919 will apply with equal force to the condemnation of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's which I assume, he intends to support.
That amendment of the hon. member for Brome was moved in the first part of the session of 1919 and was taken exception to very strongly by the hon. gentlemen I have named, but on June 9, the great resoluter on the other side of the House, the hon. member for Brome, introduced another resolution, the terms of which were practically the same, in substance and principle, as the terms of .the amendment which he had proposed in March. Now ten weeks had passed since his former resolution had been condemned in unmeasured terms, but the hon. member for Marquette, the hon. member for Red Deer and the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's had experienced a change of heart. A change had come over the spirit of their dreams in these ten weeks and these same hon. gentlemen who had charged the hon. member for Brome with trying to embarrass the Government, and with having introduced a motion for the purpose of trying to throw the country into the turmoil of an election, got up two and a half months later to support the second amendment just as strongly as they had condemned the amendment on the former occasion.
Let us refer to some remarks made by some of these hon. gentlemen when the first amendment was introduced in March. I refer to them because they are indicative of the opinions which were held at that time on fiscal matters. Take, for instance, the hon. member for Red Deer who, speaking in the House on the 25th March, 1919, said:
In the year 1896. the so-called Liberal party came into power in this country, and in 1897 they introduced some trifling reductions of the tariff, and put two or three articles of importance upon the free list. They also introduced the British preference, which was also a fairly substantial piece of tariff reduction, and then they went to sleep for ten years. That is not the way Mr. Gladstone tackled the tariff. For ten years, from 1897 to 1907, my hon, friend *
Referring on that occasion to the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) :

__who is so excited now-who says there is to
he no such thing as waiting-waited with absolute patience during that long term, because the tariff was practically passed over for ten years, and then it was-I was going to say tackled, but that would be an absurd misuse of language-flirted with again in the year 1907,
Well, what happened to the tariff in 1907? Absolutely trifling alterations were made to it, and in some cases, so far from following the example of Mr. Gladstone, the tariff was raised, in favour of those woollen goods about which my hon. friend is so anxious at the present moment.
Two months later the hon. member for Red Deer was raving in the wildest manner against the iniquity of having a duty on woollens in a climate like that of Canada. This shows the change in the position adopted by the hon. gentleman in the course of a few weeks. In the same debate the hon. gentleman made use of these words which I commend to hon. gentlemen opposite:
The manufacturers of Canada were told by some one high in the authority of the Liberal party on that day, that they were not hurt in the reciprocity agreement.
He was referring to the spring of 1911 and he says that at that time the manufacturers had been assured that they were not hurt and would not be hurt, by the reciprocity agreement. Let me quote a few more sentences from the hon. gentleman:
When one thinks of the fifteen years' record of the Liberals in power, which practically amounted to the tariff being untouched, and not proposed to be touched in any way worthy the name in the reciprocity agreement.
Again:
What patience they had in power compared with their eagerness and impetuosity when they are in Opposition.
I venture to s<ay that there has been no person in this House who has given evidence of the virtue and the fault to a greater degree than the hon. gentleman himself. He gave evidence of the virtue of patience when he sat in support of the hon. gentleman who was then Finance Minister, the present hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, and he is as impetuous as any youth in the eagerness of his demands now for tariff changes notwithstanding the condition in which the country is. Note these further words of the hon. gentleman:
And yet my hon. friends opposite have such confidence in their ability that they say, "In your very first Budget, within three months of peace being declared, we want you to make ten times as drastic tariff changes as we were able to do in fifteen years in the times of piping peace." Is that a reasonable proposition to bring before this country on a motion for going into Supply?
Two months later the hon. gentleman was taking that very course; the 'course which
he condemned in March he was willing to accept as the .proper course in June of the very same year.
If the hon. member for Red Deer were here I would like to ask him one or, two questions. I would like to ask him in regard to his own position on tariff matters and whether it has been as consistent as he would like the country to believe. I entered this House in 1908 'at the same time as the hon. member for Red
4 p.m. Deer, and I have no remembrance of a single occasion when the hon. gentleman ever did anything more *than quote Cobden, Bright, Peel, "Lord This" and "Duke That" in regard to free trade in tariff matters. The hon. gentleman talks about 'Gladstone-what would Gladstone do if he were here?-he talks about Peel and Cobden. Well, I venture to say that if any of these men who are mentioned as free traders in theory, and who might also be free traders in practice, were members of this House they wouldn't sit here for twelve years without going on record as having introduced at least one resolution proclaiming their convictions in regard to free trade. Yet during all the time that the hon. member for Red Deer has sat in this House he has never presented one single specific resolution along the free trade lines to test out the House in regard to the matters which he claims to have so much at heart.
Not only that, but may I refer you to what he said in this House in the month of April, 1909? You will find his words at page 4704 of Hansard of that date. He was discussing the tariff. The Budget had been brought down by the Minister of Finance, the present hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's. The hon. member fox Red Deer got up and, after lauding to the skies the Finance Minister for his Budget, and after congratulating him on resisting the demands of the manufacturers, when, as a matter of fact the only changes made in the tariff of 1909 were changes in the interest of the manufacturers, he went on to use these words:
Whereas, under what I still claim is a revenue tariff, you have had a series of surpluses under the able administration of the Minister of Finance.
So that in 1909 the hon. member for Red Deer did not regard the tariff as a protective tariff. He says distinctly that it was not a protective tariff, but that it was a revenue tariff, and he reiterated his claim to that effect. Note these words, page 4717, Hansard :

Give them (the farmers) a chance in the markets of the world by keeping your tariff down to a revenue basis.
The hon. gentleman says "give them a chance"-give them a chance by keeping the revenue tariff not by having the tariff removed. He was then sitting here supporting the Government of which the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) was Minister of Finance. Again in January, 1910, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) expressed himself as very well satisfied indeed with the way things were going. As a matter of fact, the hon. member when supporting the Government of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier was extremely patient. At that time apparently he was in no hurry for free trade, for he lauded the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) on every occasion when he brought down his Budget; and we have only to compare the tariff of that date with the tariff of 1894 to- see that there was very little difference between them, and1 no difference whatever so far as the protective principle was concerned, that principle having been ad*mit'ted, in practice at least, by both parties.
But while the course now advocated by the hon. member for Red Deer is along the line of wiping out entirely all duties, what course is being taken in England at the present time? I have here a clipping taken from the Montreal Star of May 22, signed by the well-known correspondent " Windermere," and having reference to the attitude of the British Government in regard to redeeming their election pledges to the farmers of Great Britain. He cables:
Their Agricultural Bill, now before the House of Commons, is of especial concern to Canada as the " Future granary of the Empire."
Taking the wheat prices of 1919 as a basis, the Bill established a guarantee of 68 shillings per quarter of 504 pounds weight for wheat, and 46 shillings per quarter of 336 pounds for oats. But as wages and the whole cost of production have greatly increased since 1919, the Bill decrees that the minimum prices for 1921 and subsequent years shall be fixed by three commissioners, and four years' notice is to be given before this system of guaranteed prices can be ended.
There is the attitude of the Government in free trade England towards the farmer. If that is not a protective measure, I do not understand what protection means.
May I also call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to one or two other features of British policy? What about the embargo on Canadian cattle; is not that protection? Why, if they placed a duty of $100 per head on the cattle we want to ship to that country, they could not exclude them any more

effectually. It is a drastic form of protection beyond all question. Then what about their attitude in regard to fixing the price of bacon? They have fixed a very low price for imported bacon, but no restrictions whatever have been placed on the home grown article; what is that but protection? I could mention many other articles of food on which there is a specific duty, and others on which there is an ad valorem duty, and those duties in many cases are very much higher than the duties we Impose. For instance, there is no duty on gasoline coming into Canada; there is a duty of 12 cents a gallon on gasoline imported into Great Britain. Our highest duty on coffee is 2 cents a pound; their duty is 6 cents a pound. Our duty on tea is 10 per cent, except where it is imported direct, when it is admitted free; their duty is 24 cents a pound. In addition they have duties on condensed milk, plums, prunes, raisins, cocoa, chicory, figs, molasses and other articles of food, all of which must be regarded as necessaries of life. And yet hon. gentlemen like the hon. member for Red Deer would have us believe that no duties are imposed in England, when as a matter of fact their customs and excise duties per head of population are pretty near double those imposed in this -country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to direct your attention to fiscal matters in 1909. In that year the Liberal party discovered a new star, and the present leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) entered this House as Minister of Labour. In 1910, under the direction of that hon. gentleman, a report was prepared on wholesale prices in Canada over a period of twenty years from 1890 to 1909. I would call particular attention to these words in the preface to that report:
For some time past, especially since the beginning of the present century, one of the most important features of the general economic situation in Canada has been a rapid and continuous advance in prices and the cost of living. When the history of 1910 comes to be written not the least memorable of its happenings to be chronicled will probably be the great agitation, partaking of the proportions of a national revolt, against the high prices of food.
I ask the House to note the concluding phrase:
-partaking of the proportions of a national revolt, against the high prices of food.


Mr. SMITH:: Who said that?


John Wesley Edwards: That is at the beginning of the report prepared at the instance of the present leader of the Opposition and sub-

mitted by him to the House and to the country with his approval. That is a very startling statement, Mr. Speaker-that the prices of food had risen to such a point in the Dominion that the people were on the point of revolting. That sentence is a rather severe comment on the praise which has been bestowed by certain gentlemen opposite on the conduct of affairs when they were in power. If, as is asserted so frequently by hon. gentlemen opposite, the remedy for excessive prices for manufactured goods is to remove all tariff walls, manifestly the way to bring down the high price of food is to open our doors to the surplus food products of the world. That is apparently what these gentlemen think.
In the report to which I have referred, which was prepared and presented to this House and the country in 1910 and which, it was said, was of great use to the negotiators who went to Washington to negotiate the reciprocity pact, 230 articles were considered. Of the 230 articles, 40 represented what the farmer sells and 190 represented things which he and others have to buy. 6o convincing wae that report that the Government of the day considered that it would be in the interests of Canada, in the interests of the farmers of Canada, to whom they were appealing for support, to take the duty entirely off the 40 articles that the farmer had to sell and leave it absolutely untouched on everything that he had to buy. That was the conclusion that was come to by them in 1911 in the reciprocity pact, and that is the argument that they are presenting to this House and to the country to-day. Yet they pretend, as do the little group who sit angularly to my right, that they are the friends of the farmers of this country. I want to place before you, Mr. 'Speaker, some of the prices which obtained at that time,-prices which the present leader of the Opposition said were so high that the people were on the point of revolution. The following statement shows, the lowest prices obtained for any of these articles in the whole twenty years, the highest prices obtained for any of -these articles during that period, and also the average price. Bear in mind that these figures are wholesale prices, which -means that the farmer realized much less than the amounts given:
Butter-	Dow.	High.	AveraDairy solids. .	. .10c	26c	161cCreamery. . .	. .14c	32c	22cCheese	. . 7c	14c	101cEggs (Storage).	. . 61c	28c	16cMilk (gallon). .	. .12c	22c	15cLow.	High.	Average.Hogs (Selects). . .	. $2.75 cwt.$8 cwt.$5.52 cwt.	S-heep (Export ewes).	. $2.25	$7.50	$3.94Cattle (Butchers' choice	steers) 	.$2.75	$6.40	$4.26Apples-barrel. . . .	$7.50	$2.50evaporated..	. 5oKb. 16c	7oPotatoes (bag). . .	.ISc	$1.30	6SoTurnips (bag) . .	* 20c	80c	45cWheat (bush.) . .	* 52c	$1.40	79cOats (No. 2 white). .	,17c	60c	33*oBarley, No. 2. . . ,	[DOT] 26c	90c	45cPeas-Ontario No. 2.	[DOT] 38c	96c	641cRye	,31c	88c	561oCorn (Yellow No. 3),	,21c	78c	51cWool-Washed. . . .	,12c	26io	1SJCUnwashed. . .	. 7c	17c	11cCalf skins	, 5c	14c	9 cHides (No. 1 Steers	and cows inspected.3c	14c	71c
These are the prices taken from a report prepared at the instance and under the direction of the present leader of the Opposition covering a period of twenty years. I may add in passing that these figures show that on all except two articles the lowest price was obtained during the time that these hon. gentlemen were in power. But, Sir, what do we find? Again I direct your attention to the remarks in the preface to that report: that prices obtained by the farmers at that time had gone to such a pitch that in order to bring these agrarian plutocrats to their knees; in order to bring them to time; in order to stem the tide of revolution which was threatening on account of the high prices which were being obtained by the farmers, they made this proposal to throw the doors of Canada open to the surplus farm products of the world, at the same time compelling the farmer to continue to pay duty on everything that he had to buy. When butter rose to 22 cents a pound; when eggs were 16 cents a dozen and milk 15 cents a gallon, the dreams of the then Minister of Labour were disturbed by visions of the red flag of revolution. Something had to be done to bring things down to a reason-onable basis. Sixteen cents a dozen was far too much for a farmer to get for eggs; 22 cents was entirely too much for a farmer to get for a pound of butter. Why, it was preposterous; sixteen to eighteen cents a bag for potatoes-whoever heard tell of the like? Was there not every excuse for the people taking up arms in rebellion against that sort of thing? So my hon. friends proposed to open the doors of Canada and to admit an exportable surplus of 462,000,000 pounds of butter; to admit 256,000,000 dozen eggs in order to bring the price of this commodity down from 16 cents a dozen, and to let in 2,290,000,000 pounds of meat in order

to bring down the exorbitant price of meat. The farmers were getting too much for their cattle when they were selling them at $4.26 a hundredweight. They were getting an exorbitant price when they were selling sheep at $3.94 a hundred and hogs at $5.52-why, that was .an outrage indeed. Notwithstanding the fact that they had all these figures before them as to the prices obtaining at that time-these ridiculously low prices that the farmers were getting for their stuff, prices which meant that the farmers were leaving their lands because they were not able to make one-quarter of one per cent on their capital investment- notwithstanding all that, Sir, they proposed to open the doors of Canada to the surplus production of practically the whole world in order to bring down the prices that the farmers were obtaining for their produce. Yet these hon. gentlemen are obsessed with the idea that in the election of 1911 they were right and the people did not know what they were speaking about.


Mr. McMASTER:: Hear, hear.


John Wesley Edwards: I am not in the least
surprised to hear that exclamation from the hon, member for Brome. In that "hear, hear," he is simply giving an example of that peculiar form of political, delusional insanity, if I might say so, whose saddest feature-


Andrew Ross McMaster: I rise to a point of
order, and I would, with all cordiality, geniality and politeness draw the attention of the Speaker to the fact that to apply the word "insanity" to any remark made by an hon. gentleman is not Parliamentary, nor even polite.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I have not yet heard the end of the sentence of the hon. member for Frontenac. If it be his intention to apply the word "insanity" to an hon. member, the point of order is well taken.


John Wesley Edwards: I had not the slightest intention of applying that term to the hon. member for Brome. What a useless waste of words it would be for me tp say anything reflecting on the mental calibre of the hon. member! He has given in this House instances enough of his mental capacity or incapacity, according to the way in which one looks at it. Why should I waste time referring to the mental capacity of the hon. member? I merely said that the trouble with these hon. gentlemen was that they still think that they were right and that the people were wrong in 1911, and that is a form of delusional insanity, the saddest

feature of which is that it is apparently incurable. If the hon. member for Brome thinks that is a reflection upon the gray matter which is inside that glistening dome of his, I can only express my extreme regret and pass on to the next point.
The hon. member for Brome would have us believe that he is an out-and-out free trader; at least, that is the line which he very frequently takes in this House. Is he an out-and-out free trader or is he under certain circumstances a very practical politician? Let us see what the Globe says in its issue of the 7th August, 1919, when it was reporting a very interesting occurrence which was taking place in Ottawa, namely, that last Liberal convention in which the hon. member for Brome held, I believe, the distinguished position of chairman of the resolution committee. One can readily understand why the hon, member was selected as chairman of the resolutions committee. He is the great "resoluter" of this House; he has been "resoluting" ever since he came into this House. True, he was put out of that little job this session, and I do not think he feels very comfortable about that. Another "resoluter" has taken the place formerly occupied by the hon. member for Brome. But on that occasion he was "resoluting" before that great convention, and this is what he is reported in the Globe to have said:
I have got to say that we must keep the tariff as an engine of raising revenue.
Voices-we have not.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Well, until you devise and put into successful operation some other scheme, I submit that you have got to.
Therefore, while in this House he does not propose any scheme, while he simply denounces protection, hip and thigh, and announces himself as an out-and-out free trader, still, when he was in convention with a number of other hon. gentlemen who were looking for and devising ways and means of getting into power, he then became the practical politician and said: "Well, it is all right for me to talk free trade in order to catch those who have that bee in their bonnet; but when the question comes down to a matter of practical politics, you have to have a tariff for revenue purposes; you cannot get along without it." That is the' position of the hon. member for Brome, and he is not the only one of that calibre on the other side of the House. We have the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould), who declares himself as an out-and-out free trader. I am not very much disturbed by that, because

the hon. member for Assiniboia may any day get word from that committee of fifteen to become an out-and-out protectionist, and he may change his policy -when he gets the proper notification.
The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) has been making speeches in various parts of this country; he wa3 particularly active around Ontario before the elections which took place last fall, and he has made certain statements which I am going to challenge, notwithstanding the assurance of the hon. member himself that he knows all about economics from A to Z. I am going to question his right to that claim and also some of the arguments which he has advanced from time to time in various parts of this country. The hon. member for Marquette has said that the tariff is the cause of rural depopulation. I might ask the hon. member to consider this proposition. Xf a protective tariff or a revenue tariff he the cause of rural depopulation, how does the hon. member account for rural depopulation in free-trade England? Or if his statement be correct that if the farmers of Ontario had access to the markets across the line, there would be no further migration of the farmers; if he be correct that free entrance to the American market would mean so much to our farmers, then I would like him to explain why it is that rural depopulation is going on in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and other States, just as it has been going on in this country. There are no tariffs between the state of New York and the state of Pennsylvania, nor between the cities of ,New York, Brooklyn, Pittsburg and other centres of population.
Why then is it that the rural population is leaving the farms if my hon. friend's contention be sound? The fact is that the rural population has been decreasing not only in this country but in every other country, and the tariff is not and cannot be said to be the reason for that rural depopulation. In the United States the rural population in 1890 was 63.9 per cent; in 1900, 59.5 per cent; and in 1910, 46.3 per cent; while in Canada in 1890, it was 68.1 per cent; in 1900, 62.4 per cent, and in 1910, 54.5 per cent. It is, I think, worth while noting that in each decade, with the exception of the state of Nevada, every state in the Union shows a decrease in the rural population. Speaking in this House in 1909, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark), said that during the first eight months of that year, more people hai left the United States than had come
into that country, and he brought that forward as an argument against the principle of protection in the United States. If his argument in that regard was sound, I might use the same argument against free trade because of the people leaving the farms and country districts in free trade England. I might even produce as an illustrious example the hon. member for Red Deer himself, and ask why he and thousands of others have seen fit to leave free trade England where they would have all the advantages of farming under free trade conditions, and come voluntarily to the Dominion of Canada to farm in a country where they are hampered by protective tariffs or any other kind of a tariff. Why is it, if conditions here are as bad as the hon. member for Red Deer and -the hon. member for Marquette would have us believe, that we have people voluntarily leaving free trade Britain by the tens of thousands to take up farming in this country? Why have we people coming from the United States to farm in Canada? We certainly have very few people leaving Canada to farm in the United States, and we have no people leaving Canada to farm in England. That seems to me to indicate that conditions cannot be as bad in this country as these gentlemen would have us believe, and I am going to prove that. I want to say a few words more on this matter because of certain aspersions which have been cast on the province of Ontario and the farmers of Ontario by the hon. member for Marquette. I will not give the percentage of rural population in all of the provinces, but for the purpose of my argument I wish to give the percentage in Ontario. In 1891, the rural population was 61.2 per cent of the total population of the province, in 1901, 57-2 per cent, and in 1911, 47.4 per cent. In Michigan the percentage of rural population in 1890, was 65-1 per cent, in 1900, 61.7 per cent, and in 1910, 52-8 per cent. You will see from these figures that the percentage of rural population in Michigan is practically the same as in Ontario. Ontario and Michigan are very much alike in other respects. Farming, mining and lumbering are carried on in each, and there is practically the same number of farms in Michigan as in Ontario.
I would ask the members of the House to pay particular attention to the figures which I am going to give, and which I am giving because of certain statements which have been made at various times for political purposes by the hon. member for Marquette when he was endeavouring to influence the farmers of the province of On-

try, they have farmed1 them to a nicety, and I propose to show you how in some re-peets they have done so.
Take, for instance, the Grain Growers' Grain Company of (which the hon. member for Marquette is president drawing his salary of 815,000 a year, while the secretary of the same company draws a salary of
813,000,	the manager at Winnipeg a salary of 811,000, the manager at Calgary a salary of 85,200, and a young secretary a salary of $5,000 or an aggregate of nearly $50,000 a year. The first two or three members are farming the farmers to- some purpose. We had the hon. member for Marquette speaking in this House in June last year and referring to certain manufacturing establishments like Dominion Textiles, Monarch Knitting, and Canners Limited. He called attention to the fact that some of these companies were making as high as 31 per cent. He pictured in strong terms the iniquity of the whole thing and fastened it all upon the fact that we have a tariff in this country. Thirty one per cent! Let us see. The company of which he is the president in 1916 made $855,288 profit on their capital, or 62.2 per cent. Who said that? That is the sworn evidence of Mr. Rice Jones, secretary of the Grain Growers Grain Co., before 'the Costs of Living Committee of this House last June. In the year 1917 they made $844,401, or 44.9 per cent on their capital. This company was also handling machinery.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Are these farmers?


John Wesley Edwards: These are supposed to be the heaven-sent pleaders for the farmers interests in this country. They handled things such as binder twine, fence posts, fence wire and machinery of various kinds. What profit did they make out of machinery? In one year they made $272,215 or a profit of 21.6 per cent. Here we have these people, the tears running down their faces and falling in splashes on the floor in their sympathy for the farmers, ranting and raving against the iniquity of 12* per cent duty on harvesters. They figure out that 12* per cent on a $200 machine amounts to about $25 and these same gentlemen, through the operations of their own company, take about $40 out of the farmer on his binder. You would at least have thought that when it came to farm implements they would have handled them for nothing out of love for the farmer. Not so. They do not even give the farmer one hour of credit. They have no expense such as other firms have in connection with these matters. They sell for.

cash; there is no six or nine months' credit for them. Give us the cash and we will know what to do with it. We will pay it out first for the good salaries that some of us have the good fortune to receive.
Then there is another matter-the handling of elevator screenings. The average price for elevator screenings for six years up to 1919 was $8.84 but when the hon. member for Marquette was Minister of Agriculture he paid $35 a ton for screenings. The hon. member for Maple Creek(Mr. Maharg) came in there and I believe that I am right in saying that his company sold 1,600 tons to the Government and that there was a Government loss on the transaction as a result of buying these screenings of about $80,000. It is a wonderful interest they have in the farmers, is it not? They took these screenings and sold them to the farmers at $35 a ton.
Then there is the New York Export Company of which the hon. member for Marquette is also president. They had a profit, of $550,000 in one year on a capital investment of $250,000, or 220 per cent. There was only $100,000 of that capital actually paid up in cash. They had a profit of 220 per cent counting the capital at $250,000 and not $100,000 which was the actual amount of cash in the business, leaving out the water. Still we have these gentlemen, headed by the hon. member for Marquette, ranting and raving from one end of this country to the other about profiteers. They talk about what a terrible thing it is for a man to pay ninety cents on a barrel of apples ox a third of a cent on an apple. They are talking about profiteers making their millions but they do not call attention to their own overages in five years in their elevators of 357,000 bushels or $418,000 worth taken absolutely out of the pockets of the farmers. These are things which they do not particularly call attention to, for very obvious reasons.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that in the whole history of the two political parties that have held power in this country from Confederation down to the present time in dealing with manufacturing establishments of one kind or another-pampered industries, if you like, there has never been an instance where we have had such colossal and unscrupulous profiteers as the Grain Growers' Grain Company, presided over and represented by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. CreTar). It is the biggest profiteering' concern that ever was organized in the Dominion, and it is taking money right and left from the pockets of the farmers-those farmers whom its

members profess to take such a great interest in. And they take such, a great interest in the farmers for the reason 1 mentioned before,-'that they can "farm" .them, 'and they are doing it to tthe limit.
Why, Mr. Speaker, do you want another example of what 'they are doing along that line? Take what they did in regard to red clover, alsike and timothy seed. The "Farmers Sun" of March 13, 1920, contained an advertisement by the United Farmers' Co-operative Company, Limited, of Toronto, offering No. 1 red clover seed at $47 per bushel; No. 1 alsike at $41 per bushel; No. 2 timothy at $9.75 per bushel. Those seeds are not sold to the people as breakfast foods, they are sold to the farmers to sow; and those were the prices the United Farmers' Co-operative Company, Limited, was asking, and getting, from the farmers of Ontario. At Sussex, New Brunswick, is published "The Maritime Farmer," and the editor of that paper, taking an interest in farm organizations, proceeded to purchase the same grades of these seeds for disposal among the farmers and the agricultural societies as well as the branches of United Farmers of New Brunswick. After paying the freight from Toronto to Sussex, he sold No. 1 red clove r $4,450 cheaper per carload; alsike $3,550 cheaper per carload, and No. 2 timothy $1,365 cheaper per carload than these Toronto philanthropists were charging; or at the rate of $38.10 per bushel for No. 1 red clover as against $47 per bushel; $33.90 per bushel for No. 1 alsike as against $41 per bushel; 'and $7.56 per bushel for No. 2 timothy as against $9.75 per bushel charged by the aggregation in Toronto. We have, other instances. In my county a week or two ago the United Farmers' Company brought in a carload of seed potatoes from New Ontario, and they soaked the farmers $2 on every bag for just simply handling that carload. I say, Sir, that we are only beginning to turn over the leaves of this book which will demonstrate the truth of what I say, that the most colossal profiteering concern that has ever reared its head in this Dominion is that which is presided over by the hon. member who leads the third party triangularly across the way.
Now, Sir, there is not a member in this House who has less personal interest in manufacturing than I have; there is not a constituency which has less direct interest in manufacturing than my constituency. Up to the present moment there is not a single manufacturing establishment in the county 174
of Frontenac, unless we can so term a cheese factory. I could come to this House and denounce manufacturers as roundly as any hon. member without running much chance of hurting the feelings of the farmers of my county. But I take this position: I want to see manufactures in the Dominion, because so far as Ontario is concerned, at least, 90 per cent of all her farmers have to sell is sold at home. And I maintain that whether it be Ontario, Manitoba, or any other province, the best market for the Canadian farmer is his home market. That market I want to see retained and enlarged for him.
The 'trouble is that because of the very bigness of this country we are running into the danger of trying to legislate for this district and for that district, forgetting that if this is ever going to be a great country we must remember that we are members of the same family and must pull together. A little more team play is what we want. May I call the attention of hon. gentlemen from the West to one or two things which I will asik them to very carefully consider? In all seriousness I would ask them not to consider tariff matters entirely from the standpoint of the man who does nothing but produce wheat. I' might remind them that to the two old provinces of Ontario and Quebec must be given credit for 52 per cent of the value of our horses; 60 per cent of the value of our cattle; 70 per cent of the value of our sheep; and 80 per cent of the value of our swine sold. I would ask them to bear in mind that the farmers in these old provinces have diversified interests, and I would also ask them to seriously consider that we cannot build up this country by simply throwing open our doors and saying-Beoause we do not produce any fruit on the prairies, therefore we have no interest in the thousands of fruit farmers in Ontario, British Columbia and the other provinces who do produce fruit. We will never build up this country in that way. The trouble is that the representatives of the different provinces are inclined to act more as if they were the envoys of rival nations rather than the representatives of provinces which should ,be (brothers in the same family.
I repeat, (Mr. Speaker, that to my mind the most illogical and unfair proposition that could possibly be made is contained in this amendment and in the platform supported by hon. gentlemen opposite-a proposition which tells the farmers of this Dominion : You must climb tlhe tariff walls to get your stuff into other countries, but so



far as your own country is concerned, you will have to compete with the surplus products of the world. That is unfair, that is illogical, and if we carry that process far enough we are going to simply ruin this Dominion.
I wish to express my appreciation of the patient attention which hon. gentlemen have given to me, and I will do so by saying, merci beaucoup.


Mr. F. F. PAKDEE:: Bredner said last night-they are paid by the consumer. As regards clothing, 35 per cent plus 10 per cent, and as regards boots and shoes, 25 per cent plus 10 per cent is added on to the cost. My contention is that the excise duty should be paid by the manufacturer; it should be deducted by the manufacturer from the manufactured article and paid into the treasury at the time of the sale. Why could not that be done? On a $25 suit of clothes, the manufacturer would pay into the public treasury 10 per cent on the cost of the manufactured article, or $2.50. If you did not have an excise duty against the imported article, you would be absolutely all right; but having it against the domestic and also against the imported article gets you nowhere. If you would leave the tax off the imported article and charge it as a home excise duty which the manufacturer had to pay, he could not charge it up against the customer, and consequently he could not pass the tax along, because if he did, the importer would be able to sell his goods more cheaply than the home manufacturer. Therefore, the tax would necessarily have to come out of the manufacturer himself, and the consumer would be protected. Surely that is good doctrine. The Government recognize that policy themselves, because that is what they did this year in regard to patent medicines. Formerly, you bought a package of whatever it was and paid for it 25 cents, or whatever the cost might be. Under the stamp tax the vendor put a stamp on the package and the consumer paid 26 cents for the article. The Government recognized the fact that that was not good business, and now they make the manufacturer of the patent, medicine put a stamp on, and the manufacturer, not the consumer, pays the stamp tax. The policy is absolutely the same; if it is good in one case, why is it not good in another? I cannot see what the difference is, and I think what I have suggested is what ought to be done.
Some time ago in Montreal I advocated an excise tax to be paid by the manufacturer just in the manner that I have described. I argued then that the manufacturer had been a large profiteer during the war and that, therefore, he should pay, as he is best able to. My reasons are these. In the first place, this would save the consumer, and in the second, it would get back from the manufacturer some of the war profits which he had made. In England, there is talk of getting back some of "the war profits. Why should not a small portion of these war profits be taken from the manufacturer in the way I have [Mr. Pardee.1
eendeavoured to describe, and why should not the common man be saved that additional tax? By taking this tax from the manufacturer, we collect it >
from the man who is best able to pay, and that is what we want. Let us also remember that under these Budget proposals the tariff is left exactly as it was before; it has not been touched in any way whatever, and consequently the manufacturer is not hurt.
The other night the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne) quoted a speech I had made in Montreal.


Mr. BALLANTYNE:: Hear, hear.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: My hon. friend says hear, hear. The only thing that the minister did was to quote my speech incorrectly. In other respects it is all right. This is what the minister said:
*Well, the leader of the Opposition had scarcely delivered that speech when one of his followers, the member for West I.ambton (Mr. Pardee) made a speech before the Liberal Reform Club in Montreal. He said nothing about the policy of free trade as enunciated by the leader of the Opposition in his St. John speech, and he carefully avoided any reference to the Liberal tariff policy as adopted at the Liberal Convention held In Ottawa during last August. But I must say that I agree with the remarks of the hon. member for West Lambton on that occasion. He said that he was a protectionist; aye, he even went so far as to say how he would fix the tariff.
Both of those assertions are absolutely wrong. I did not say that I was a protectionist.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: If the hon. member has been incorrectly reported in the press, then, of course, I shall withdraw the statement that I made. But the Montreal Gazette reported the hon. member as saying that he was a protectionist and that he would even go so far to say that, in his opinion, the tariff should be 25 per cent.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I can quite understand that in the Montreal Gazette and in my hon. friend; the wish is father to the thought. I did not say that I was a protectionist, and if the speech was wrongly reported, I cannot help that.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: You did not say you were in favour of a tariff of 25 per cent-


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I did not. What I said was this: I went on to point out as best I could the condition in which this country was financially. I said that we needed money, and if we needed money we must have a tariff, il said: Supposing you take, merely for the sake of illustration, a tariff of 25 per cent and you split it up 17 per

cent and 8 per cent, 17 per cent as a general tariff and 8 per cent as an excise tax, you would accomplish the purpose. I did not lay down a 25 per cent tariff. Surely my hon. friend would not expect me to say anything of the kind reported in the Gazette.
Mr. BALLANTYN1E: The newspaper so quoted you.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: That may be, but the
newspaper quoted only just so much.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Did the hon. gentleman intend 17 per cent to be the average over all the range of imported goods?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I did not intend that 17 per cent or 8 per cent to be fixed at all; I could have taken 40 per cent or 50 per cent and split it up in the same way. I only gave that figure as an illustration which we could divide into general and excise.


Arthur Meighen: About what figures
would the hon. gentleman fix?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The hon. member will gather that from my remarks before I am through.


Arthur Meighen: I have not so far.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Patience is a virtue. 1 further stated in that speech that I suggested -what I did because I did not feel this country was yet ready for a full measure of direct taxation. That is the reason I spoke that way and it is the reason I am speaking that way here to-day. I have pointed out what I hope will be a constructive thought to the minister in raising revenue.
Now' let us turn to another phase of this tariff discussion, which is rather illuminating. The woollen textile industry, which has not been touched by this tariff, has a range of duty from 3 cents a pound specific duty to 30 per cent ad valorem, and it has a capital invested of $19,268,202. All these figures are taken from the Statistical Office. Its net profit was $3,578,318, or r8.41 per cent on its capital invested. Unitemized expenses, $1,107,126. The average wage paid to its employees-and I would call the attention of hon. members to this-was $624.04 per annum. The industry employs 2,530 males and 2,489 females, and operates 75 mills. That is a synopsis of the woollen textile industry.
The hosiery and knit goods industry has a capital invested of $31,092,866, and it made a net profit of $7,709,246, or 24.7 peT cent. The return shows "unitemized expenses," $1,715,847. What these "unitemized expenses" are is beyond my conception. It
has 108 plants, employing 9,000 females and 4,000 males. The average wage paid for 1918 is $516.32 per annum.
The cotton textile industry has a capital invested of $53,7%,394, and it made a net profit of $1,344,913, or 25.8 per cent. Again "unitemized expenses," $4,819,860. It operates 26 plants, employing 8,279 males and 7,725 females.. It has a protection of 35 per cent. The average wage paid is $538.23.
Now we come to the Canada Cottons, the statement for which was published in the Montreal Herald. The profits in 1917 amounted to $1,126,125, in 1918, $1,563,103, or 19 per cent, and in 1919 to $1,839,443. The surplus in 1919-1920 was $454,585, and their total surplus to-day is $2,683,479. The industry enjoys a duty of 20 to 32| per cent.
There is one striking thing about these figures, and it is this: Every one of these industries is manufacturing goods which are required by every man, woman and Child in this country. The industry enjoys a tremendous protection and is piling up surpluses every year. It pays enormous dividends to its stockholders, but if the figures I have given are correct the employees receive scarcely a living wage under conditions as they are to-day. I have often heard protection held up as the one thing that protects the workingman and gives him good wages, but here we have startling examples of what protection does not do in the way of giving working people a living wage. All these industries have a large protective duty, and it does not strike me that they are now altogether in swaddling clothes. The reason the protection is kept so high is this: The woollen textile industry, for instance, operates 75 mills; the cotton textile industry, 26 plants, and the hosiery and knit goods industry, 108 plants. Many of these plants are up to date, with the newest and best machinery and the best driving power that modern invention can give them. But some of them are weak sisters and have to be supported, and just as long as the weak sister is there, just so long you will find her willing to lean anywhere she can. Therefore it is that the people of this country have to dig down in their pockets and support the weaker plants in order that the whole combination may show a profit. That is the real reason w'hy the duty is kept where it is. It appears to me that is a remarkably good example of what a tremendously high protective duty does-it does not foster enterprises or advancement, but rather retards it.
The Minister of Marine and Fisheries told us the other night at a little dinner that what this country needed was people, and ha

never spoke a truer word. I would ask my hon. friend how you are going to get more people in this country if you go on making the high cost of living still higher? Indeed, how are you going to keep those you already have here? Will people come to this country to-day with the high cost of living increased so tremendously by this Budget, and with your franchise law standing as it is? They will not. Now, you must have people in order to make a country great, and I would therefore suggest a different mode of taxation. In Great Britain there is a tax on wealth, a tax on property, a tax on all those surroundings where you find wealth. In Canada you have a tax on people; you have a tax on food, clothes and comforts; you have a tax on the man and his family. It is not right. It is not the way to get people to come to our shores. It is an absolutely fallacious proposition. The two systems of taxation differ as widely as possible. I think the Canadian people might well take a lesson from the British system.
Sir, I hope I fully realize the present position of this country. I know the country needs money; I know that we have to pay our way; I realize the fact that a country for which we sacrificed so much is worth still more sacrifice. But what is the best thing to do? I say again, that you must not drive people who have come to this country, away from the country, and you must not deter from coming those who want to come here. We must make the conditions in this country such that Canada will be a good place to live in. We have tremendous areas in this country which we must fill up with people and get them producing. I say, make a tariff for revenue, not for protection, have it properly adjusted, and I repeat, make the necessaries of life free. In following this course the Government, I humbly submit, would be doing something constructive. Get your money from those who are best able to pay, and thereby reduce the cost of living to the consumer. The manufacturers, I am sure, will be patriotic enough, indeed, they must be patrio-otic enough, to help pay the debt of the country which has protected them while they have been building up their business. The manufacturer, I am satisfied, will be patriotic enough if the Government is strong and forceful enough to reach him in the right way, and not be entirely subservient to the vested interests of the country.
In conclusion, Sir, I desire to say that I do not believe that the taxes proposed by this Budget will produce results. I think that with the complications and the machin-
[Mr. Pardee. 1
ery required to enforce it you will find that the retail stores will have tft largely increase their staffs, and if they are put under the necessity of having to pay more money to carry on business what will happen? Once more you will pile on to the consumer something extra which he will have to pay, and I do not think there is any question about that. For instance, apply this to such a firm as the T. Eaton 'Company. I was speaking to a large departmental store man the other day and he assured me that so far as he could see their staff would have to be largely augmented to carry out the tax provisions imposed by the. Minister of Finance. I have no doubt there will be all sorts of evasions of this tax. There will be thimblerigging in every conceivable way, and although I recognize the great ability of the Minister of Finance, I think it will require a far cleverer head than his if this tax is to be adequately collected. I am speaking with all seriousness. I believe, Sir, from what I can gather, from what I can hear amongst the retail merchants and amongst the people themselves in regard to the tax, that there will be evasions in every way which will largely augment the cost of goods while it brings no return to the treasury. Then if this increase is brought about, it means that once again the consumer will have to go down into his pocket to pay. So far as I can see, Mr. Speaker, this scheme will not, as the Minister of Finance hopes, prevent the abuse otf the tariff for the exploitation of the consumer; vastly otherwise will it prove, I think. Nor do I think that it will, in the words of the Minister:
Safeguard the interests of the Canadian people in the existing world struggle for commercial and industrial supremacy.
At Six o'clock tihe House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.


Mr. J. F. BEID (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, before making the few observa^ lions which I propose to offer to the House, I desire to say a word or two with regard to isome statements made by hon. members who have spoken before me. I wish to refer briefly the attitude of the hon. member for Fronitenac (Mt. Edwards) in his bitter and unjustified attack upon United Grain Growers, Limited, the farmers company of which the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Orerar) is president. Some men are born natural leaders and they have the ability to conduct big business. Naturally, people find them out and ap-

point them to the highest positions which they are 'Considered so well qualified 'to fill. That honour has fallen >to tlhe horn, member for Marquette who is to-day the president of one of the largets corporations in Western Canada with a membership of 36,000 or 37,000. Reference was also made by the hon. member for Frontenac to the salary that is paid to the president of this company. Perhaps it would do the hon. member for Frontenac good to know that the sad ary which is paid to the president of this farmers' company, is paid as a result of the expressed desire of the shareholders of the company that it shall he paid. The hon. member for Frontenac and myself, no doubt, were not born under such .a lucky star as we have not achieved that enviable position to which the hon. member for Marquette has climbed. That of course is our loss.
The hon. member (Mr. Edwards) also used very strong words in regard to the character of the United Grain Growers, Limited. He found fault with it for establishing a subsidiary company in a foreign country known as the Grain Growers' Export Company. If those composing the United Grain Growers, Limited is worthy of such a character as that which the hon. member for Fronteoiac has ascribed, it is surprising that this -company has iso steadily grown from a very small beginning with an investment of $1,000 away back in the parly days, to the position which it occupies to-day, a company which has practically unlimited credit at the bank when it chooses 'to borrow its millions of dollars to finance its business.
About the establishment of this export grain company in New York, I fail to see what harm is done by forming a grain export company !im .the land to the south of us to carry on a very profitable business there and to bring home -to Canada the profits of that business. Then again Mr. Speaker, in regard to 'the profits of the parent company, the United Grain Growers, Limited, I would point out 'that the profits are returned to the farmers who do their business through the .company. It is itheir own /business; they produce the grain, tney put St through their own company and the profits are turned back to the farmers in the shape of dividends for the most part and in the shape of the commodities and necessities which /are used on the farm such as machinery, supplies, binder twine and many other articles which are supplied at as low a rate of profit as possible consistent with good business.
l Mr. SMITH: Do they first take it out of (the farmers .and then refund it?


John Flaws Reid: I fail 'to Catch the point. I have stated plainly that the farmers who produce the grain trust their own company to handle it for them ,,and the profits made from the earnings of (the company are returned in dividends and hy furnishing to the farmers necessities (which are required on the farm at as low /a rate as possible consistent with good business. Has my hon. friend any fault to find with that?
. Mr. SMITH: In 'the first place they take i/t out of the farmer.


John Flaws Reid: into nails and sold those nails under a protective tariff, and when he returned his money to Germany to buy more steel rods for the same purpose, was he not sending his money to that country to help the Prussian war lords to manufacture guns and ammunition and poison gas to kill our soldiers when they went overseas to fight for us?
The hon. gentleman finds fault with the United Grain Growers for purchasing agricultural implements in the United States. When he was speaking I wanted to inform him why our organizations were compelled to take that course, but the rules of the House prevented me from doing so then. I wish now to enlighten him. It was not because the United Grain Growers, or rather their board of directors, preferred to buy in a foreign country rather than at home, but because of the fact that our Canadian manufacturers absolutely refused to sell to us, saying, "No, we will not sell to you, you are pirates in the trade." Those "pirates" were compelled to go aroving and to purchase their machinery in the States, where they found that the manufacturers were very glad to get their money, the business being spot cash; and if any harm has been done, this House may judge now who are to blame for the course taken by the United Grain Growers, Limited.
But Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not exactly fair. He said that we tried to so conceal implements of home manufacture that our people would not be able to recognize the Canadian implements which we had for sale. As a matter of fact, Sir, many of our Canadian manufacturers do sell goods to us to-day, for they recognize now that we are not "pirates," but that we are in the trade to stay; and therefore to-day we are selling Canadian-made goods wherever we can procure the right sort at the right price.
I understand that the financial position of my hon. friend (Mr. Elkin) is very much better to-day than it was before the war- my information comes from a direct source -and that he may be justly called a "war lord" or a "war profiteer." And no doubt since he has entered the merger he will be a participant in the $77,000,000 of watered stock that is now being issued by that huge amalgamation. This reminds me of the statement made by the hon. member for Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens), that before the farmers' organizations accused the manufacturers of reaping undue profits their own hands should be clean. I think it would be well for the hon. member for St.
rMr. J. F. Reid.l
John city to see to it that his hands are clean, hut I am of opinion that to get them clean he will have to scrub a long time.
I wish to say a word in passing in reply to the hon. and noble member for Fort William (Mr. Manion). I say "noble" because he enlisted of his own accord as a true Britisher. The hon. and noble member claimed that 48 per cent of our population belongs neither to the manufacturing nor to the agricultural class. In reply to that statement I want to draw his attention to the circumstance that although a large number of our people may not be directly employed in agriculture or in manufacturing, when we look at the tonnage we shall find that our agricultural products form a considerably larger volume than do our manufactured articles. The tonnage of our agricultural products in 1917-and the figures have very much increased since-was 27,000,000 tons; live stock 3,000,000 tons; mine products 37,000,000 tons; forest products 16,000,000 tons; manufactured articles 16,000,000 tone; miscellaneous 8,000,000 tons,-that is, tons of .freight traffic moved on our railways. So I claim that this 48 per cent includes many who no doubt are employed in the transportation of agricultural products, while a lesser number, of course, are employed in the transportation of manufactured articles.
The hon. member for Fort William in making his comparisons was very careful not to declare himself either as being in favour of free trade or of protection; he simply gave us some figures. Then he asked the question: How is it that no great power, other than Great Britain, has adopted free trade? Well, an answer to that might be: how is it that during the war Great Britain's allies had to go to Great Britain, which is called a free trade country, in order to procure financial assistance? In fact during the war Great Britain practically financed all her allies.
Then again, the hon. member says. let us create home markets for our farm products. Well, I agree that we should endeavour to create home markets for our farm products. But he also told us that eighty per cent of our wheat was exported. How long will it be, Mr. Speaker, before the population of Canada will be so large that it will consume eighty million bushels of wheat? In my opinion, it would take at least fifty million people to consume that quantity of wheat, and when Canada's population reaches that figure the production will still be on the increase. I think the idea embodied in that remark is an absurd one.

The hon. member made reference to the United States as being a country of high protection. When we look into it we find that the following goods are free in the United States but are not free in Canada: binders, reapers and mowers; threshing machines and parts thereof; cultivators, plows, harrows, horse rakes, seed drills, wagons and other agricultural implements; cement, leather, boots and shoes, pegged or wire fastened, other boots and shoes in soles, etc., harness and saddlery. The Government are in the habit of going t- the United States for examples in regard tr how they may raise their finances. Why d^ the Government not go to the United States once more for an example? Why do they not say to them: We will put on the free list in Canada all the articles which you put on the free list in the United States? Are we afraid of our American competitors to the south? I do not think so. I know that the farmers of Western Canada are not afraid of any farmer who grows produce on the American continent, and I am further of the opinion that our Canadian mechanics are second to none in the world. If we go to the United States we find Canadians a-t the head of many of the large institutions there.


Mr. BURNHAM:: What is the hon gentleman's opinion on dumping?


John Flaws Reid: I will come to that later. In the United States the average ad valorem rate of duty on all goods dutiable and free in the year 1917 was 8.31 per cent. The average duty 'collected per capita was S2.ll and the percentage of imports from Canada free of duty was 69.46 per cent. The average ad valorem rule of duty on all goods free and dutiable imported into Canada during 1918 was about 17 per cent. The percentage of imported goods which were free to Canada was only between 43 and 44 per cent. During 1918 we paid duty to the amount of S161,00J,000, in round figures, making a per capita tax of $20. Now, let us summarize that:
Percentage of goods imported
free into the United States 69.46 per cent Percentage of goods imported
free into Canada	 43	"
Duty collected per capita in
United States	$2.11
Duty collected per capita in
Canada	$20.00
Then, taking the average family of five- the average family of working people would, I believe, be more-and we have the following:
Duty collected from family of five in
the United States	 $10.55
Duty collected from family of five in
Canada	$100.00
There is where the shoe pinches, Mr. Speaker-in the large family. Then, my hon. friend went on to say that living conditions in Germany-I assume he had reference to conditions before the war-were much better than they were in England or in Scotland; I will not mention Ireland. He also told us about two gentlemen who went over there to write books. Now, I have every respect for the journalists and for those who write books, but I myself lived in the Old Country quite a few years ago. I worked with mechanics who came across to Scotland from Germany and I received first-hand information in regard to conditions in Germany. Certainly the men were much better paid in Edinburgh and in Glasgow than they were in Germany, and certainly they lived better; so I consider that my hon. and gallant friend's information was not correct. Surely if conditions were better in Germany than they were in England, these men would not have come there from Germany.
The member for Fort William (Mr. Man-ion) told us that the capitalization of the railways in Great Britain was very much higher than in this country and that the rate of freight per ton mile was much greater there than in Canada. The figures he gave are as follows:
Average rate per"ton mile.
England	
2.31	centsGermany	
1.41	"France..	
1.46	"Austria	
1.49	"United States	
0.80	"
Some of the information which I have I got direct from the Railway Department. But I wish to explain briefly the difference between railway conditions in the Old Country and those which prevail here. We have a very long rail haul here. In Great Britain there is a very short rail haul; in fact, ten miles in the Old Country would be a comparatively long haul. My information is that twenty-four miles in Canada is the minimum haul; if you have to ship your carload of freight over a distance of eight miles, the eight mile haul will cost you just as much as a twenty-four mile haul would cost. In fact, one of my neighbours paid at the rate of six cents per ton mile for the hauling of a car of settler's effects eight miles. It would not matter whether or not

the minimum tonnage was in that car; the ful freight rate would have to be paid. Therefore, I think I have made my point clear that the raite on our short haul in Canada is very much higher than the rate on a similar haul in England.
My hon. friend made this remark, which I did not like to hear:
Before the war the United Kingdom surpassed either Germany or the United States in foreign commerce, but since the war the United States has completely overtaken the United Kingdom.
Any hon. member must know that during the greater part of the war the United States was absolutely at liberty to pursue her industries to the very besit of her ability ; her industries were not disturbed at all; her commerce was disturbed only by the submarines. She stayed out of the war long enough to get all the loose moneys of the world; so that it is no wonder that today Great Britain finds that the United States has surpassed her just a little bit as regards commerce, and the comparison should not have been made.
I wish to make just a few remarks in reply to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens).


Andrew Ross McMaster: A little louder, please.


John Flaws Reid: Move down this way. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre made the statement that the poor farmers of the prairies were being robbed by the United Grain Growers, Limited, and a statement made by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) to-day was but a repetition of this staitement. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre went a little further; he told us that he had lived on the prairies, he did not say how long, but long enough to find out that it took considerable grit to stay on the prairies. We notice that the hon. member had not the grit and so he left the prairies. Evidently he found the Pacific slope a more congenial clime and his associates there more of his own ilk. He found that on the prairies the high protectionists had hardly a place to stand on, but on the Pacific coast they are, I understand, in the majority at the present time. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre is the mouthpiece in this House of certain big interests, a World in Vancouver, a Telegram in Winnipeg and a huge private terminal elevator at the head of the Lakes, and the owners of these are the gentlemen who are pushing our worthy friend forward as their spokesman in this House. He has condemned the action of the Government in appointing a Wheat Board, and for this

reason solely: that his associates cannot get into the wheat game with their gambles, and their private elevator is not being well filled. I am very anxious to find out just why the hon. member for Vancouver Centre is championing the cause of the poor farmers, as he chooses to call us, who live on the prairies. There must be some motive behind all this; and while the hon. member was speaking, I tried to read his thoughts, and I have come to the conclusion that I have struck the nail on the head. While the hon. member was speaking, I interrupted him once for this purpose. I wanted to give the hon. member an opportunity of correcting himself as he made a statement which is entirely aside of the facts. The statement that he made when I interrupted him was that he claimed that storage charges are charged on grain when loaded into a box car and on the wheels and in process of transportation. In other words, he claims that after the grain is loaded out of a country elevator into a box car and is in the process of transportation, it still carries storage charges. I defy the hon. member to find in the Canada Grain Act, and frotm where else does he get his information unless it be from his associates? - Further, there are fifteen days' free storage in country elevators, and that includes not only the handling charges and storage charges, but fire insurance charges. Again, at the head of the Lakes, in the terminal elevator, ten days' free storage Is given before storage charges begin.
The hon. member also made a bitter attack on the farmers' organization, the United Grain Growers, Limited, for illegally taking grain from the farmers in the shape of overages. "Illegally taking," I interpret as stealing. In other words the hon. member claimed that the United Grain Growers, Limited, with other elevator concerns, were stealing grain from the farmers. Under the Canada Grain Act, as many hon. members in this House know, the operator of a terminal elevator has nothing whatever to do with the weighing of the grain either into or out of a public terminal elevator. A public wedghmaster, a Government official, is charged with the duty of weighing the grain in and weighing it out. A Government grain inspector is stationed at Winnipeg; all grain coming through Winnipeg is inspected and the dockage fixed. If needs be, the grain is reinspected at the head of the Lakes while it is being unloaded, and if a wrong dockage has been fixed, that is corrected. Moreover, while the grain is in process of being cleaned in the terminal ele-

vator, that operation is carried on under *the supervision of the inspector who puts the correct dockage on it. How then can any hon. member in this House state such a deliberate falsehood?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not know that I
altogether caught the full purport of the remark of the hon. member because I could not hear him very distinctly, but I hope he is not saying that a statement of an hon. member of this House is a falsehood.


John Flaws Reid: I withdraw the statement. I am sorry that the statement made by the hon. member caused me to make this break. I appreciate your ruling, Sir.
Moreover, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) made a serious charge against the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster).
Speaking in this House on May 20, he said (Hansard 1920, page 2676):
Not only that; they induced the Minister of Trade and Commerce to make an amendment to the Grain Act which legalized what had up to that time been an illegal act.
Mr. Speaker, it is not for me to complain of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I pass on.
In the western grain trade we have three farmers' organizations doing a very large business. One is the company that has been under fire here for the last few days, the United Grain Growers, Limited, another, which is purely a farmers' organization, is the Saskatchewan Co-operative Elevators Limited, and the third, also a farmers' organization, but not of this country, is the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society. This latter organization buys millions of bushels of wheat from Canada every year and does business, not with a single eye to making a profit, but to give service to their people, and its policy is to narrow down the margin of profit as closely as is consistent with sound business. Now when these two farmers' organizations of which I have spoken belonging to Canada are doing business right alongside this Scottish Cooperative Wholesale Society, is it possible that we could be such a rotten, corrupt, profiteering company as was stated the other evening by the hon. member for Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens)?
I also wish to refer to some statements made the other evening by my good friend from Fraser Valley (Mr. Stacey). He told the House that Washington apples of a low grade were being dumped on the prairies to feed the poor people. He said in effect that this extra duty of 30 cents a box, for it
is an extra duty because there was already a tariff on apples, had saved the situation for the British Columbia fruit growers and for the farmers on the prairies, because it gave them a cheap and sure supply of good fruit and prevented the Yankees from flooding our country with apples, putting the British Columbia fruit grower out of business and then raising the price on us. But, Mr. Speaker, the people on the prairies have not found that cheap fruit which.the hon. member for Fraser Valley speaks of. We have noticed no reduction in the price of apples, but we have noticed an increase. That is only natural, of course. The British Columbia fruit grower, like the rest of us, is only human, very human. My good friend told us further that he was not talking politics, and I am sure we all believed him. He was talking money. Every box of apples meant an extra 30 cents in his pocket. In speaking of his loyalty to his country and of the huge debt which this country has to bear and pay, he said in effect: I am an old man, but I am prepared to do my share. He took very good care, however, to say in the first place that he rc juired his 30 cents extra a box on apples, and after he got that, he would do his bit and pay his share of the debt. But who pays the 30 cents duty on his box of apples. It is the poor people or- the prairies that he speaks of who are being fed on cheap apples from Washington. As I said, his loyalty to his country is based on the condition of 30 cents extra duty on a box of apples. Now let me apply to that the recipe of my hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion), who said the other evening that if a little free trade was good, why not have complete free trade, or as he very aptly put it, as a medical man, if a certain quantity of strychnine and a teaspoonful of brandy was good for the heart, why not a pound of strychnine and a keg of brandy? Then why is my hon. friend from Fraser Valley content with 30 cents a box on apples? Why not make it $5. If one is good, the other would be better. While my good friend was speaking of fruit growing in the Fraser River Valley and of the splendid success the growers were having under protection, I could not help thinking of the poor people who live on the prairies who have hard scratching to get "an apple, and I was reminded of that little verse of Burns:
O wad some power the giftie gie us.
To see oursels as others see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
And foolish notion.

Now I come to the Budget itself, and I am glad to see the Minister of Finance right opposite me here. It is said that Scotchmen never throw bouquets, and I am not going to throw any I am just going to talk plain facts. I believe, Sir, that when the present Minister of Finance took office as minister of his department he adopted, with that strong personality of his, an orphan child which nobody else wanted. I say with all due respect that I believe when he came into office he had to handle the most difficult financial situation confronting this country in the last five years, because when he took office the treasury was empty. It was useless to try and borrow money outside of Canada, and the enthusiasm of our own people had waned somewhat. As I heard many of them say "The war is over. We have won our objective. Surely the Government will not want to borrow any more money." So with the treasury empty and no market in which to borrow, the Minister of Finance had to tackle a pretty stiff job. I remember meeting him in Winnipeg last fall when he was starting on his campaign in the West. The building where the meeting was held was cold. Winter had set in very early in the West and snow had come ear'ier than ever recorded before. A great percentage of the root crop was frozen in, and thousands of acres of heavy crop was snowed in and could not be threshed until the following spring. The dried out areas has suffered a greater loss than eve-before in the history of the West. Such a condition of affairs was not encouraging to a man starting out to borrow money. Not only that; the people bad pronounced against issuing any more Government bonds exempt from taxation. Then my hon. friend the Minister of Finance was practically compelled to go to a people who, I was going to say were unwilling, but many of whom at any rate were unable, .to lend any money. When I saw the horn, gentleman address that meeting in Winnipeg in a cold building in which people were sitting with their overcoats on, I said to a friend who was sitting next me: "What do you think of the prospects? What do you think of this, the first step of the new Finance Minister?" My friend replied: "Well, I wish him luck." After the meeting, as *we were going to the hotel, my friend said to me: "Reid, what do you think of the new Minister of Finance?" I said to my brother Scot: "It seems to me that the man who had courage to tackle the job in the first place will come through with this Victory Loan drive." I say, all 
honour to our worthy Finance Minister; but the position could have been made much easier for him if. when the war was on and huge contracts were being made with excessively large profits accruing from them, and when money was in abundance, his predecessor had taken time by the forelock and secured some of that money. This was not done, however. Nevertheless, I will take off my hat to a man of such courage and of such (frankness as I have seen the minister display.
Now, I come to the principle embodied m the Budget. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that the principle of income taxation which was introduced by the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) is a principle which is embodied in the plaitform of the Progressives. I am glad also to observe that the Budget contains the principle of a direct tax on luxuries. I am (in hearty accord with that principle of the Budget, Mr. Speaker, and speaking for myself, and I believe for the other members of this little group, this "contemptible little army," I shall be only too glad to see this or any other government embody in their programme every plank of the Farmers' platform. But while the principle is correct, in my opinion, I believe it is wrong in its application. I want the Minister of Finance to understand that I am putting forward my views on matters of finance as an amateur, but I believe that the principle is wrongly applied. I 'think that the scale of luxuries comes down a little too far, and perhaps it is not sharply enough graduated as it goes up. I think my hon. friend should have had courage enough to go a step further, and I wish he had read carefully the platform of the organized farmers. I should like to see every article which is made in Canada and which enjoys a protective tariff subject to an excise tax, and that excise tax should be graded according to the height of the tariff wall. Just let me read an extract from this little platform of ours:
That all corporations engaged in the manufacture of products protected by the customs tariff be obliged to publish annually comprehensive and accurate statements of their earnings.
That every claim for tariff protection by any industry should be heard publicly before a special committee of Parliament.
I claim that any corporation in the Dominion of Canada enjoying the benefit1, of a protective tariff should pay and should be willing to pay an excise duty to the Government, because it is our information- the organized farmers have delved rather carefully into this matter-that unde: the

protective tariff, before the treasury gets one dollar the manufacturer gets three dollars ; and I certainly believe that the excise tax is at least one way of getting pan of that three dollars which justly belong'- to the Federal Treasury. Furthermore, 1 believe that all the necessities of life should be on the free list, and the application of that principle would touch the great mass of consumers. Surely no one will condemn a luxury tax if it is not levied on things that are not really luxuries. Those who are able to afford luxuries should be satisfied to pay their share out of 'the large riches which they have enjoyed freely -for many years. We also have another little paragraph in our platform, and I trust hon. membeTS will pardon me for referring so often to that platform. I have a word to say for the disabled s-oldiers. I have mentioned this matter on the floor of the House before, and if I remember correctly the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder), when sitting as chairman of the committee considering the subject of further gratuities to soldiers, mad' the statement that the Government would employ insurance actuaries to make inouiry into the advisability of establishing a life insurance bureau for returned soldiers. Now, this is the paragraph which I have reference to:	-
That provision should be made tor insurance at the public expense of unpensioned men who have become undesirable insurance risks while in the service.
I find that a great many soldiers did not carry life insurance before they enlisted, and many of them to-day cannot obtain insurance at any price. Some of them may be able to obtain life insurance, but at rates that are altogether prohibitive. I am still of the opinion that this Government should establish a life insurance bureau for soldiers, and if it were run under proper management it would not involve very much expense to the country. I was told by an eminent physician who had examined many of the soldiers that had been turned down by straight life insurance companies, that a large percentage of these men were quite likely to live to a good old age, but some disability or other prevented them from getting life insurance. I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is the duty of the Government to take some action in this matter.
I come now to the question of railways. The people of Canada to-day own some 22,000 miles of railway, and we do not need to discuss the question whether or not the
Government adopted public ownership on principle as being in the interests of the country. At any rate, the matter was t! rust upon the Government; there was no other alternative. Now, some people to-day are advocating a sharp increase in railway rates, and I am going to state my position to-night so far as this question is concerned. I -for one do not believe that the time is ripe for this Government to permit any increase in railway rates, for reasons vh.ch I shall state. All the people of Canada are to blame for the railway muddle which we find ourselves in to-day, and it is my opinion that we have paid too much for our w'histle. We have paid too much :ir the railways which we have had thrust upoi us. The next thing that this Government can do, and do as speedily as possible, is to make a physical valuation of the railways in their possession, such valuation to be made by competent railway men and to be made from the operating point of view. Then, depreciate the system to what it is worth and forget the balance. If it is under competent management-and I am not saying one word against the present management-and if that management is divorced from politics entirely you .should say to the men in charge of the systems: "We will supply you with the Tolling stock and necessary equipments and you must compete." Then, after .a thorough trial, if we find that our roads cannot pay under existing rates, it will then be time to raise the rates. I am convinced that in a very few years' time, by a proper amalgamation of all the systems of roads which we now have under our management, they would showf a profit and foe able to pay their w'ay. I make these remarks for what they may be worth, and I hope that the Minister of Finance will think over them at least.
Immigration must go hand in hand with our railway system. We have been bringing immigrants to Canada and putting them out West. It has -been our experience that many of our immigrants had not money to buy land and therefore they had to go back from the railways a distance of twenty or thirty miles. Grain cannot be profitably raised at that distance from a railway. Railway branch lines must follow settlement, and if we are to bring immigrants to Canada and encourage men to go upon the land, we must follow them up with our branch lines of railways so as to put them in a position to ship their products to market. I am convinced that if a proper policy is followed out, if branch lines are built and living conditions are made pleasanter -for those who settle upon the prairies

our surplus production of wheat will soon be swelled to the extent of many millions of bushels.
That brings to my mind the Hudson Bay railway. In 1882, when I came to the city of Winnipeg, I had my first experience in a federal election. Placards announced that Captain Scott "Is the man who will build the Hudson Bay railway." From 1882 down to the present time the building of the Hudson Bay railway has been made a political football. I wonder when this Government will finish the few hundred miles of steel that requires to be laid to the Bay. Our worthy Cabinet ministers tell us that the Government is committed to the project, but if they do not hurry up a good deal of the project will not be there when they come to look for it. It is rotting away. It is not finished, although it has been in course of construction now for ten years. Do not think for a minute that the people of the West have forgotten it. I hold in my hand a telegram from the Yorkton Board of Trade. In Yorkton to-day there is a large wholesale centre, and in the Board of Trade they have a good many farmer members. This is the wire they sent me:
March 29, 1920.
The Yorkton Board of Trade has passed the following resolution: Be it resolved that the Yorkton Board of Trade request the Federal Government to issue 20-year bonds to the extent of $5,000,000 for completion of Hudson Bay railroad, which shall include the amount required to complete the gap of sixty-eight miles between the towns of Sturgis and Hudson Bay Junction, to be known as the Hudson Bay main line completion issue, which bonds can he disposed of in Western Canada in a reasonable time after the issue is authorized on the basis of the Victory Loan.
Secretary, J. M. Clark.
I read that telegram to show the House that the people of the West will not sit down quietly until this road is completed. It is a necessity to-day, and as the years go by the need will 'become stronger. I wish to give you a few figures on the last increase in freight as it affects the farmer. The recent 15 per cent increase in railway freight rates falls more heavily on the farmer and the rural population than upon any other section of the community. It takes the farmer living in Manitoba an extra $14.50 on eveTy car of wheat-that is quite a chunk; on every car of oats $13.60 extra; on every car of barley $13.40 extra; on every car of flax the same amount. And it gets him again the other way when shipping in his machinery and other things that he must have on his farm. Therefore I claim that this proposed advance should not be made.

With the indulgence of the House I will give a few figures to show how the tariff works out at the present time, and I will take for the purpose of my comparisons the years 1915 and 1920. I shall make my comparisons in dollars and cents, as that is a pretty sure way of knowing what one is doing, whereas percentages sometimes do not mean very much. On a 14-inch gang plough the customs tariff in 1915 was $11.20, to-day it is $13.97; on a disc harrow in 1915 it was $5.03, to-day it is $6.34; on a shoe drill in 1915 it was $17.75, to-day it is $19.40; on a gas engine of li horse-power in 1915 it was $8.80, to-day it is $14.61; on a 5-foot mower in 1915 it was $5.60, to-day it is $9.50; on a wagon in 1915 it was $7, to-day it is $20.25. The percentage on the tariff works out very satisfactorily for the manufacturer, for as the price of the article increases so also does the protective tariff increase, and consequently the users of machinery have no option but to pay not only the increased price, but also the increased tariff.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make reference to an attempt which was recently made to muzzle the press of Canada, particularly the agricultural press. I am reading from the Grain Growers' Guide of March 17 of this year, the article being headed, " Moulding the moulders of public opinion." The originator of the scheme is Mr. G. M. Murray, .former general manager of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. The article proceeds:
The plot is as follows:	Mr. Murray has organized a bureau-presumably a Moulding Bureau-with himself as the Moulder-in-Chief. The Moulder and his staff are located on the ninth floor of the C.P.R. building in Toronto, close by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association headquarters. . Just what is the relationship existing between the Moulding Bureau and the C.M.A. doth not yet appear. But at any rate Mr. Murray has quite a staff in his Moulding Bureau, and they are busy reading and clipping papers from all over Canada.
When the editorial articles have been clipped then they go presumably to the Moulder-inChief, himself, Mr. G. M. Murray. According to his contract he classifies them and makes up his " black list " and his " white list." He then sends out his " confidential " report to all the Divine Right protected manufacturers who have paid him $250 per year, or more, to become members of his Moulding Bureau. In his " black list " Mr. Murray, of course, names those newspapers and journals who have dared to lay unholy hands upon the sacred edifice of the Protective Tariff. He then, presumably, advises the manufacturers-who have each paid him $250, or more, to join his Moulding Bureau- that they should' withdraw their advertisement from those offending journals.
Mr. Murray calls this scheme " shepherding advertising"'-Mr. Murray, of course, being the

Shepherd, and the low tariff press being the lambs to be fleeced. The Grain Growers' Guide was, of course, the most unruly and wayward lamb on the Shepherd's list and was to be plucked without mercy. All these journalistic lambs were to be fleeced of their advertisements until they would eat out of Shepherd Murray's hand and " baa-aa-aa " plaintively to be restored again to favour in the eyes of the Moulder-in-Chief and his battalion of Divine Righter protectionists.
But the tables are turning. The lambs have refused to be docile and have declared unanimously for the freedom of the press. The readers of the Grain Growers' Guide are ready to accept the challenge and are prepared to meet an advertising boycott by refusing to purchase goods from those firms who seek to cripple The Guide. Mr. Murray's plot has failed. He cannot secure a " safe and sane press " by " shepherding advertising patronage." The pitiless white light of publicity has exposed the rottenness of the scheme of this would-be Napoleon of the press. Instead of a bunch of journalistic lambs eating out of his hand he has merely caught a bunch of protectionist manufacturer suckers who have paid him their good money for an utterly worthless service. The press of Canada can never be bludgeoned into submission by any such Prussian methods.
I desire to also put on Hansard the contract sent out by Mr. Murray. It iis in this form:
The undersigned hereby employs G. M. Murray for a term of	
commencing	and ending	
(a) To ascertain by careful and systematic review, and to determine as correctly as he can, the editorial policy of every daily newspaper published in Canada (foreign language papers and papers published in the Yukon territory excepted) ;
<b) To ascertain by careful and systematic review', and to determine as correctly as he can, the editorial policies of such other Canadian publications as the undersigned may hereafter specify, or as said G. M. Murray may deem it wise in the interest of the undersigned to .embrace "within the scope of his investigations ;
(c)	To furnish information on record in his office or obtained w'ithin the period covered by this agreement concerning the editorial policy of any Canadian publication upon which the undersigned makes demand in writing for a report ;
(d)	To furnish without the formality of a demand In writing reports upon the editorial policies of such Canadian publications as, in his judgment, it is in the interest of the undersigned to receive;
(e)	To advise, with respect to any Canadian publication (except as aforesaid) carrying advertisements for the undersigned, as to the desirability of continuing, increasing, reducing or discontinuing the space used therein;
(f)	To advise, with respect to any Canadian publication not patronized by the undersigned for advertising purposes but apparently suitable therefor, as to the desirability of contracting for space therein ;
In consideration of the work to be performed and the service to be rendered the undersigned hereby agrees to pay G M. Murray the sum of	dollars ($	) at the commencement of the above-mentioned term.
It is further expressly agreed by the undersigned :
(1)	That all information, whether printed, written or verbal, furnished voluntarily or upon demand by G. M. Murray to the undersigned, shall be held in strict confidence, and shall never be revealed to the owners or officers of any publication reported upon, except in such cases and under such restrictions as may be authorized in writing by the said G. M. Murray.
(2)	That, while the said G. M. Murray undertakes to exercise good faith, due diligence and care in the performance of the duties herein specified, he does not guarantee the correctness of the information supplied, and shall not be liable in damages to the undersigned in respect thereof.
(3)	That the said G. M. Murray reserves the right to terminate this agreement at any time, by refunding to the undersigned the unearned portion of the above-mentioned consideration.
(4)	That upon the expiration of the term set forth herein, this agreement may be renewed l'or a like term by the undersigned again paying to G. M. Murray the above-mentioned consideration, in which event, even though no new agreement shall have been signed, all the conditions embodied herein shall be deemed as continuing in effect.
(5)	That the duplicate of this agreement in the undersigned's possession shall be held in strict confidence, and that without the said G. M. Murray's consent, no third party shall either during the currency of this agreement or at any time thereafter be shown the agreement or made aware of its existence or informed directly or indirectly concerning any of its contents.
(6)	That upon the termination of this agreement the duplicate of it shall forthwith be returned by the undersigned to the said G. M. Murray.
(7)	That the reports and other printed matter or written advices referred to herein shall be deemed to have been satisfactorily delivered by the said G. M. Murray when mailed, postage prepaid, under personal and confidential cover
to	
(Insert name of individual and such address as
will always ensure delivery.)
Signed	'" ' '
(Must be signed by proprietor or by responsible officer of a corporation.)
Dated at	this	day of
	19	
Now, Mr. Speaker, my object in reading this-and it has taken me longer than I expected-is to shoiw this House that am attempt was made to muzzle the press of this country. The effect of that is well known to horn, members of this House. If the press is muzzled; if the press is trammelled ; if the freedom of the press is taken away, how are our people, especially those who live great distances from the capital and from the cities, to get the education and the information which is rightly theirs? I submit, Mr. Speaker, 'that this matter is worthy of investigation by the Government.


Mr. H. O. WRIGHT (Bat.tleford):: Mr. Speaker, it is not very often that I take np

the valuable time of this House and I do not purpose doing so now. I have sat quietly here for .the past three sessions, intent upon hearing and if possible absorbing the views of 'those who have had more experience An 'the public affairs of this country than ilt is at all likely I shall ever have. While the hearing has been comparatively easy even at this great distance from the plaice where the stage is set in this House, and while I have benefited very greatly from the privilege of being here, in distant association with these great men, the process olf .absorption has been slow and somewhat difficult along some lines. It may be that At is to my discredit, but the fact remains that I find a.t this time, after ail 'the instruction I have received from prominent members on both sides of the House on the subject of the fiscal policy of this country, the convictions I brought in' with me when I first took my seat still hold fast, and, indeed, in some instances have gained strength to such an extent that I feel i't my duty-at this most propitious time-when the stress of war is over aind the country As rapidly settling down 'to a normal peace basis-to Diane my position fairly .and .squiarely before this House 'and before the people who have placed upon my shoulders the responsibility of representing .hem here.
In my opinion there have been many considerations An the past that needed careful weighing, and which were of much greater importance from a national standpoint than the possibility of being personally misunderstood, and I have not hesitated An meeting the criticism and even censure of those Ifor whom I have as great respect, and with whom I have more in common, than any other section of the people of this country, for the course 1 have followed in the past, believing that my actions were in the best interests of the nation, and that I have paid in some slight proportion at least, the debt of gratitude that is i due to those hon. gentlemen in .the Government who halve laboured earnestly and without consideration of sell in carrying this .country through the grave perils oif ,the last few years. I am satisfied that 'the future will show 'that they have done much to make the name of Canada famous, and that their names will be regarded by future generations as monuments to the tenacity and determination of 'a people who can never in the future be regarded lightly, but always as a power amongst the nations of the world.
Now, Mt. Speaker, the time has come when sentiment must be relegated to the

scrap heap, and we must get down to the serious consideration of the issues that face us in a more matter-of-fact manner.
Coming directly to the Budget, for I do not want to delay the House unnecessarily. There is much in the Budget that commends itself to me, and I think should commend itself to the country. The excise tax on luxuries and near luxuries is to be commended as a democratic measure which places the burden where it can easiest be borne. To that I have nothing but words of commendation with this one exception. Would it not have been better to have .placed this tax solely upon goods manufactured in Canada in the case of essential articles such as boots and shoes. I am merely using boots and shoes as an illustration and in no way singling them out for special treatment. When you put an excise tax on all hoots and shoes selling over a certain figure, the net result may lbe increased prices to thfe consume^' and the same old condition is perpetuated.
The manufacturer collects his profits, which a great many people in this country believe are very materially enhanced by reason of the tariff, and the real evil of a protective tariff still exists. Only a portion of the money paid by reason of the tariff goes into the treasury and the balance into the .pockets of those who manufacture and sell the goods.
On the other hand had the excise tax beeni placed upon goods of an essential nature having their origin in 'Canada only, we would have been able to collect the customs tariff on goods of foreign origin at the port of entry, and on Canadian goods by the excise tax. The price at which the foreign goods could be sold in Canada after paying the customs tariff would then have had a stabilizing effect upon the prices to the consumer. It is my opinion also that the application of a real excise tax to many other articles enjoying protection would yield a handsome revenue and would not work any real hardship on any one.
The system of taxation which is perpetuated by this (Budget, I do not agree with, and I can tell the hon. minister that it is not satisfactory to the great majority of the people in the portion of the country from which I come no matter to what party they claim allegiance. I would rather have the excise tax as it is suggested than not at all, but I merely wish to point out that the system of levying this tax could be greatly improved upon. As it stands the old system is perpetuated as practised by both the old parties, and this does not

meet the approval of those whom I have the honour to represent.
It was a source of keen disappointment to jne to find that no provision is made for placing such indispensible articles in the development of this country as farm machinery and building materials on the free list, or even the lowering of the duty thereon in a substantial manner. I have not heard any plausible argument put forward as to why this should not be done. The only hope we have is a' promise of a tariff revision in the future. I remember very distinctly hearing just such a promise made last year, and when called upon to do so, in defending my support of last year's Budget I explained that a tariff revision had been promised and that I considered the Government was entitled to be given the opportunity of laying before the country their tariff policy. I do not wish to be unfair to the Government in this regard. It may be that owing to the necessity of holding an extra session there was not sufficient time to do this work. But there surely was time to start it. This has not been done. What am I to tell these good people now? The only thing I could say is that a new minister has made the promise this yea*-and I am trying him out to see if he will keep his promise better than his predecessor. I have no intention of taking any such stand. It will take more than promises of future blessings to procure my support to Budgets in the future.
Even when the time comes and the tariff is revised. After listening to the discussion that has taken j lace during this debate, have we who do not believe in the principle of a protective tariff as practised in the past, any reason to suppose for one moment that there will be any downward revision or any change in the system of collecting the revenues accruing therefrom5 I think not.
Never have I seen such an acrobatic display as we have witnessed here in the last few days, on any other stage in the country. Members on both sides of the House have apparently been vieing with each other in vaulting gracefully and otherwise from one side to the other of the lines of thought on the fiscal policy. I am not offering any criticism of these hon. members. They have a perfect right to align themselves with the forces they believe will further to the greatest extent the interests of those whom they represent, always keeping in mind the welfare of the country as a whole, and I accept their action as being sincere. I ask 175
them to extend to me the same consideration.
An hon. member told us during the Budget debate of last session that we had at that time reached the parting of the ways. I did not agree with him then but I do believe that we hrve reached the crossroads now, .and I am sure that the changes of front that we have seen recently will prove that I am right in my conclusion.
I stated at the outset that I wanted to place my position fairly and squarely before this House. I stand four-square behind the tariff principles contained in the Farmers' platform.
To those who have seen fit to go to great pains to berate the farmers' activities, more particularly in the West, I have this to say: I am a farmer. I do not draw one cent of income from any other source except that eminating from the farm. I am a life member of the Saskatchewan Grain Growers' Association, a shareholder in the Saskatchewan Co-operative Elevator Company, and this may be of more Interest to my hon. friends,^1 am a subscriber to the Farmers' Political Campaign Fund and heartily support the principle of raising campaign funds in this manner.
If these hon. gentlemen think that they have brought a blush of shame to my face by their efforts to show that there is something nationally wrong with my position as I have stated it, they are far wide of the mark. I consider myself just as true and just as loyal a Canadian as there is in this House, and they have only convinced me the more thoroughly that there is still abundant reason for the farmers continuing their efforts which were commenced when conditions were perhaps, more objectionable than they are to-day.
I do not wish to pre-judge, but I cannot see how I can support the tariff policy that any person must see will eventually be adopted by this party. An hon. minister has told us that- it is upon the fiscal policy that political thought-divides. I accept this as a statement of fact. I was elected to support this Government during the period of the war and demobilization. I have fulfilled my contract to the fullest extent and must now choose my path for the future.
I therefore purpose voting for the amendment of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, not because I think there is anything material in the amendment, but because I understand according to the rules of the House no other amendment can be moved and I have no choice in the matter.



Mr. Best and Mr. Rinfret having risen at the same time:


Georges Henri Boivin: According to long-established custom the Speaker should give the preference alternately to members on opposite sides of the Chamber. I must therefore recognize the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret), but will see the hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Best) next, if he then rises and desires to speak.


Mr. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, there is always a certain sentiment of restraint in the mind of a new member who rises to address the House, especially on such an important matter as the Budget. But if I correctly understand the duties incumbent upon every one of us, whether still privileged by youth or already touched by the heavy hand of age, we do not speak as individuals; we speak for our constituents, and as such it is in a spirit of confidence and determination that I offer these few remarks. Moreover, I claim a privilege which but a few on either side of the House can claim, a privilege which the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) wanted to extend to all hon. members, but which the Government has so far refused with much persistency- I hold a fresh mandate from my people.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: That means something.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: course; and I till ink that a man who has worked consistently and with all his energy for eight hours of the day is entitled to spend a fair proportion of his time in the bosom of his (family, so that he may be able to cheer them up and to enjoy a happy and comfortable life himself. The days are gone when a thousand men, slaves, have had to work for the pleasure and the extravagances of a single individual. I am a very strong believer in the eight-hour day policy. It has been adopted in most civilized countries, and I repeat that when a man has contributed eight hours of his day to the service of his fellowmen he is entitled to adequate remuneration and sufficient leisure time. Moreover, I do not think that the increase in wages counts very much in the general increase ini the cost of living. I have before me a report of the American Railroad Brotherhood prepared by Mr. W. .1. Lauck. I should like very much indeed, Mr. Speaker, to cite from the report of the Board of Commerce established by this Government, but so far we have had only one report from that board and that was in reference to the resignation of its chairman, Mr. Justice Robson.


Mr. BUREAU:: Justifying the high cost
of sugar?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: As I have not that report I must be content with quoting from the report of the organization which I have just mentioned. I shall quote only a few lines, because I do not believe in the practice of reading long documents:
Of the extraordinary increase in the price of sugar now amounting to 300 per cent, the study says, the increase in labour cost paid by the consumer was less than 15 per cent. .	.	.In the meat packing industry, where profits were said to have increased between 300 and 400 per cent, the labour item was shown so small that a wage increase of 100 per cent would add less than five per cent to the total cost of the meat. .	.	.
Profits absorb approximately one-half the retail price of certain kinds of cloth, the report declared, while the labour item amounts to from one-fourteenth to one-twentieth of the price.
I shall nut read any further. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that, 'the farmers and the labour men are legitimate factors in the determination of prices, and the real profiteer is the man who stands between them, the middleman, the agent, the commission broker who produces nothing yet sells everything; who buys butter, eggs and vegetables from the farm and sells them back at exorbitant profits to the city people. In the transfer of produce from the place of production to the spot of consumption you
[Mr. Rinfret.l
have the whole process of profiteering. And the remedy must be applied at the source of the evil. In these days, from the moment when an egg' is laid by a good-willing hen to the moment this highly essential and venerable product appears in the china cup before the consumer, it has travelled such a long way that it has increased as much in price as it has lost in freshness. It is brought from the farm in a state of innocence. It is put into a box and placed on board train; then from the train it is taken to a cold storage, where it lies in long confinement and meditation. Later on it pays a visit to a wholesale house and is handled by quite a number of agents. Then it spends a few days in the slhop of the retailer at the street corner. Finally, after this extended tour, full of age and wisdom, it dies a natural death on the plate of the consumer. How many people, Mr. Speaker, from the poultry yard to tile breakfast table, have handled this product and, thereby increased its cost? There, Mr. Speaker, you have the whole question, if I dare say, in an eggshell. The high cost of these articles is due to useless manipulation and criminal abuse of cold storages, and it i3 just there that the Government should intervene. Let me say a few words in regard to cold storages. It is a well known fact that cold storage owners prefer to allow thousands of pounds of meat to perish rather than have the market flooded for fear that poor people might be able to obtain food at reasonable prices. These institutions were designed pre-eminently to store goods so that in the bad season they could be sold at cheap prices, but they have served the very opposite purpose. They have not been utilized as refrigerators for the food of the people but they have been nothing but closed vaults to aid in speculation. This Government should see that these cold storages are properly controlled as has been done in other countries. The Liberal party in the convention of August last saw to that point and placed in its programme a resolution from which I beg to quote the following paragraph:
With the object of reducing the high cost of living by eliminating as far as possible the waste and expense in handling food products between the producer and the consumer, it is expedient to extend the principle and system of Canadian Government elevators, and to provide interior and terminal cold storage warehouses equipped for the assembling, assorting, etc., of food.
I will quote no further. The Government says that the people should economize. I think. Sir, that by these new taxes they

are introducing it will be very hard for. the people to economize, because they will have no money left. I think that economy is akin to charity in this respect, that it ought to begin at home, and I would therefore ask the Government to economize. The Government, however, have brought down a Budget that shows us a sum of $550,000,000 which, they admit, they have revenue to cover only to the extent of two-thirds of that amount. Yet in the opening of the session in the Speech from the Throne this House was informed:
It is satisfactory to know that business in Panada has been well maintained, that production has been large, and that general conditions are on the whole satisfactory.
This is the kind of satisfaction that the Government has to offer the Canadian people. I do not wish to dwell at any length on the Budget, but I cannot but deplore the fact that the Government not only has been unable to relieve, but it has added very greatly, to the already heavy burden which the poor consumer such as the low salaried men, the clerks and labour men now have to bear. Not only does the Government not relieve that class of people, but they add to their burden. The Government say that they are going to tax luxuries.Well, that reminds me of the statement of an economist who claimed that there were only three things which were essential to human life, namely, a glass of water, a loaf of bread and a blanket. I think the Minister of Finance must have consulted that economist when framing his Budget, because he has taxed pretty nearly everything but water, bread and blankets.


An hon. MEMBER:: He has taxed the
blankets too.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Possibly he has; that
only makes my argument the stronger.


Jacques Bureau: And they are taxing the bread too through the Wheat Board.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: As to these taxes, Mr. Speaker, I had occasion to visit my division during the holidays. That division happens to be an important one, and the fact that I am about to state may possibly not surprise the Government. Probably they expected it; if they did they have not been disappointed. These taxes ere damned hy every one, bolth by the merchants and by the purchasers. I could say much about these taxes but I will limit myself to a few words. It has been shown that these taxes will create a lot of confusion. I said a
moment ago that the Government taxed pretty nearly everything. That was a mistake. There are some oddities in this new taxation that the Minister of Finance has brought in. For instance, II do 'not know why it is that the Minister of Finance is taxing umbrellas when he is not taxing canes. ,1 suppose he would want to lay a burden on the man who is putting something aside for a rainy day. The Government is taxiing glassware but it is not taxing china. You may hot drink-I shall not say wine because wine is not to be touched these days-but you may not drink water in a piece of cut glassware because you will be taxed but if you choose to drink it in the highest grade of Dresden, Saxony and (Limoges ware you will be beyond the reach of the tax. Why the minister has done that no one can possibly know.


Jacques Bureau: For pink teas.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I will accept .the word of my hon. friend. It has already been shown that this tax will lead to fraud. I know there are stores-I will not admit they are in my own division-where they have already started imposing a tax on every line of goods no matter what the price may be. 1 also predict that before many months at will be practically impossible to buy a hat below $5 or a pair of shoes beloiw $9 or a suit of clothes below $45 because the inducement that is given by this system of taxation will be so great .that merchants will increase even low grade merchandise to the prices fixed by the Government.
With regard to the luxury tax, I might quote the Montreal Gazette which stated not later than this morning that it considered that .the Government had fixed the limit of price on clothes at too low an amount. The Gazette says:	.
He draws the taxation on clothing at the line not of luxury, but of necessity. It is not extravagance to-day to pay $45 for a suit of clothes, or $9 for a pair of boots.
With that I thoroughly agree. But there is also a general feeling that these taxes are altogether unfair. [DOT] I will give an example that was pointed out to me of how it will .affect the druggists. It relates to patent medicines. These medicines will be subject to four different taxes if they contain alcohol. They will first, have to pay $2 per gallon on alcohol: they will then have to .pay one per cent on the wholesale price; they will then have to pay for the stamps which must be affixed to the bottles and finally they will have to pay for the 39 per cent tax on patent medicines. The

Ottawa Journal refers to this point. I shall not quote from my own paper or from Liberal papers but I am going to quote the Ottawa Journal. It says:
Further consideration might well be given by the Government to this heavy tax on what has become a necessity in many families unable to bear it. Doubtless a remedy for pain oi discomfort is a luxury to the sick, "but it is hardly the kind of luxury that the public treasury should profit from. Besides which, the proposed tax is unfair because it hits only the liquid medicines.
There as another point about -this tax upon which merchants and the public at large ifeel very keenly and that is that the tax should be imposed not on the full amount but only on the excess of the amount over what the Government has determined. The other day, when my hon. triend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) made a speech, he claimed that in the United States this tax on luxuries wias charged only on the excess. He was 'Contradicted by some hon. member on the other side of the House who wanted to wager a hat that he was wrong. I am afraid my hon. friend will have to pick up the hat and I will quote from the United States revenue law hs approved on February 24, 1919. It reads thus:
Sec. 904 (a) That on and after May 1, 1919, there shall be levied, assessed, collected and paid a tax equivalent to 10 per centum of so much of the amount paid for any of the following articles, as in excess of the price hereinafter specified as to each such article, when such article is sold by or for a dealer or his estate on or after such date for consumption or use.
This makes the case very clear that the United States charge the tax only on the excess and not on the lull amount; so that my hon. friend from Brome was altogether light and he is entitled to receive the hat from my hon. friend on the other side.
But there is something more to be said about this tax. The Minister of Finance himself has no idea what will be the result of the tax. Speaking lo the Montreal Gazette on the 21st May he said:
There will, no doubt, be some confusion for a time," Sir Henry Drayton, Minister of Finance, remarked to-day, " but that is inevitable with any new methods of taxation. When the system begins to operate it will be found to work smoothly."
Let us hope that it will prove true.
The luxury taxes will accomplish one of two things-either they will provide revenue or they will bring down prices. Revenue is needed, but if the cost of living is reduced, we shall feel that the luxury tax has equally accomplished its purpose.
(Mr. Rinfret.]
That is what the Minister of Finance says. Just imagine if you were to go to a physician and he were to give you a bottle and say: "This may be good for your appetite, or it may be good for your stomach, or it may clear your liver or possibly you may use it as an ointment; at least try it any way; it will do you no harm." That is exactly the stand take.i by the Minister of Finance. But I will say to the Minister of Finance that there is another alternative that he has not foreseen in connection with this system. It may reduce the cost of living, it may produce revenue; but it may also lessen trade, as the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) has said and it may put out of business quite a number of a certain class of retailers who will not be able to go on with their trade with this tax imposed on the special lines of goods which they are at present se'ling.
But the Government says that it needs revenue. It needs $50,000,000 a year for railways. But because it has seen fit to buy some railways, I think it is rather hard to impose taxes on everything our people wear because the Government blundered in that particular instance. The Government also needs revenue because at this time when we boast- that we are done with militarism the Government is still spending $12,000,000 a year on the Militia, which is many millions more than we thought of spending before the war and when we were preparing for it. The Government also needs revenue because in previous years it offered war loans to the extent of $1,380,000,000 free of taxation. I do not wish to be personal, but I will give an illustration in a general way of how this tax exemption works out. Suppose that a multi-millionaire-and I think it actually took place-invested $1,000,000 in those war loans, bringing him an income of $55,000 a year, for which investment at the time he would be praised for his "patriotism"; that income of $55,000 should have been more than cut in half and I suppose at least $30,000 should have gone into the public treasury in the form of income tax, but as a result of exempting those war loans from taxation that patriotic gentleman has made an investment against the public interest to the extent of some $30,000 a year.
But there is this further feature to be considered, Mr. Speaker. We are paying interest on a huge war debt, and if we look at it closely we shall find that this war debt not only comprises the expenses of the war proper, but it also comprises the huge profits which were made by some friends of the

Government during the war; in other words, we are paying interest on the large profits made by the friends of this Government, and those profits have been stored away safely in those tax-free war loans. Which means that to-day we are paying the interest on a large portion of those war profits; and while those privileged beings, friends of the Government, are in full enjoyment of their revenue, the Government is forced to tax the common people and to maintain a high tariff.
Naturally during this debate much has been said about the tariff, and reference has been made to the division which I represent. Before I come to that point, I would like to answer a question put by hon. gentlemen opposite who have occasionally asked us:	What would you do if
you were in our place? Well, we would be placed in the position of a tenant who enters a house that has been badly kept for a number of years. We would probably have to spend some money in papering the walls, repairing the floors, and possibly in fumigating some of the rooms. But should we enter that house, we would see to the fullest extent possible that the damages were paid for by the people who had caused1 the damage before we proceeded to administer the affairs of the country.
The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne)-who is not in his seat now-said that the election of St. James was waged and won on protection. I have Hansard before me, and I will, read a passage of his speech, because it sounds so new to me. He said:
My genial and astute friend, the member for Beauce (Mr. Boland) -
whenever there is a compliment paid to some hon. member on this side of this House we may be sure of what is going to follow.

who was doing all he could to elect the hon. memberthat is myself, and I feel much obliged to the member for Beauce.
-who now represents that great division in this House (Mr. Rinfret)-
you will notice, Sir, how my hon. friend was full of compliments before he reached his point.
-also made a very strong protectionist speech.
I will not take issue with the Minister of Marine and Fisheries if he has not been better informed on this election. As will be remembered, there was no straight Government candidate in the division, and therefore the information that my hon. friend
was able to collect was naturally from a .most indirect source. But if the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is under the impression that the St. James election was won on a platform of protection, I must inform him that he is labouring under a delusion.
Last night the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) gave us a most spectacular performance; he was speaking behind heaps of books and documents, and during the course of his speech he culled extracts from those books and documents as a busy bee would gather honey from a bed of flowers. And he also was very free in putting questions to the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) until the latter could stand it no longer and left the Chamber. Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister was perfectly aware that we could not reply to his questions. He knows the rules of the House very well, and even if he had forgotten about them I know that the Chair would at once have recalled them. But he kept on putting questions to this side of the House and then looking to his supporters as if to pick applause f.om their very eyes, and again turning to us and saying, "The hon. gentlemen cannot answer my questions." But the hon. minister knew all the time that we were precluded from answering him Unfortunately he is not in his seat now, but if he were I would have felt like putting a few questions to him in turn. Of course, possibly I would not care for a reply, possibly I would like to put to his very lips the same chalice that he wanted us to dirink from last night. But just the saone I might have asked him why, after spending two hours in the afternoon to demonstrate that free trade has been a failure in England, and that the people there are gradually coming back to protection, he found it necessary to spend two more hours in the evening-and to what purpose, Mr. Speaker'

to show that this Government has on some items lowered the tariff even below the reciprocity point! And yet the hon. minister would put questions to us and look at us staringly as if he had silenced us forever.
I would like to ask what the hon. gentleman was arguing about all yesterday afternoon and last night; was he arguing protection, or was he arguing for a lower tariff? I think he was arguing both, Sir. It seemed to me that he could cut his speech in two, and senl the afternoon part about protection coming back into favour

in England to his frfencs at Toronto-if he has any ieft there; and the other part where he demonstrated that this Government has lowered the tariff even lower than reciprocity called for he might send to his western friends. And after the hon. minister had made those two demonstrations in one day, it will be remembered that he concluded by admonishing us always to be consistent when dealing with fiscal policy!
As to the St. James election, I desire to be very emphatic in stating that at every meeting we held we stood for a lowering of the tariff on food, we stood for the very piinciple that is embodied in the resolution of the Liberal party that was adopted in August last, and which was read on many occasions by various s/peagers during the campaign; and atlso for the principle embodied, for although less specific it is the same principle, in the amendment proposed the other day by my hon. friend for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding).
My hon. friends opposite say that -we are receding from former policies; that we are not consistent in the matter of fiscal policies. If this were a free trade country, I could quite understand hon. members opposite saying that in such an amendment as we are now supporting we were drawing backwards. But for a number of years we have had to deal with a high protective tariff. Everybody knows, even those, I think, /who argue to the contrary, that to step from that high tariff to plain, absolute free trade would be national suicide. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is indicated by the very processes of nature itself. When a man's limb has been bitten by frost and you wish to restore it to its natural warmth, you do not expose it at once to the heat of an oven or a fire; but, lest you would lose it, you friction it with snow so that life and blood will gradually return to the inert limb. That is what we are trying to do. We have to-day a cold and inert tariff. We all understand that, having regard to the welfare of the country, it would be a great mistake to expose it once to the open air. We wish to take a cautious, a prudent, a gradual step. The Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Meighen) made a pathetic-appeal to me yesterday to support the Budget because I had promised that to my electors. I am full aware of my responsibility, Mr. Speaker, as a public man, and I say that when I do vote for the amendment brought down by the member for Shelburne and Queen's I will fully meet the views of the whole electorate of St. James, because the 
labour .man who opposed me also stood for a moderate tariff.
There are other points that one would feel like touching upon, but I do not wish to overburden this House with speech. The hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), speaking of customs valuations, complained that the Government were having the goods valued on the basis of the nominal value of foreign money and were not taking into consideration the current rate of exchange. Tiiis is a veiy special matter upon which I have some documentation, and I think it would be better to leave it over; probably there will be an opportunity later in the session, or when we take up these resolutions in committee, to deal with it.
But before I take my seat, Mr. Speaker, .'here is a matter which I do not wish to treat at any length, but to which I would allude. My hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) said this afternoon that we should have in this country a little more team play, and, probably to illustrate the thought that he had in his mind, he began and ended his speech with a few words in French. Now, Mr. Speaker, I too think that we should have a little more team play, and I would like to allude to that as a conclusion.
As a newly-elected member, fresh from my constituents, I would like to voice their feelings in this House and to express most sincerely the intense desire of my province for a good understanding with the Englishspeaking citizens of our country. This (may not be & matter exaetlv relevant to the Budget, hut I think it is closely connected with the general welfare of the country. During the war the province of Quebec was hmentably misrepresented, because people failed to understand the mentality of the French /Canadians; they attributed to enmity and to lack of loyalty and courage what was really a most normal and most explicable state of mind. This, of course, is a dead issue and I do not desire to revise it. But I may be permitted to rejoice in the fact that since the conclusion of the war a 'better account of my province is given in the press of the country, because in these times of stress and social strife the proper mentality of the French Canadian is better understood; the so-called "Quebec apathy" appears in its real significance and is properly branded as moderation, steadiness and love of the land. When the strikers ;n Winnipeg were hanging a thundering cloud over that western city; when Ontario cities-aye, Mr. Speaker, even the pure and holy Toronto-were threatening rebellion, the good old province of Quebec still re-

mained draped in its robe of quietness and peaceful stability. And the Montreal Star was well able to say:
If a red wave of Bolshevism should sweep from overseas, as some people fear, it would shatter itself upon Quebec's stability as the Atlantic surges are shattered on the Gasp6 cliffs.
I do say, Mr. Speaker-and I wish my hon. friends would well digest my words- that no province is more tolerant, more desirous for peace and harmony, than the province of Quebec. All that we demand- and it is treatment meted out to minorities within our borders-is a clear recognition of our rights; that is in full conformity; with the British spirit all over the world. Wherever the true British spirit has prevailed it has preserved the essentials of the nationalities over *which it has presided; .and that is the spirit that we wish to see flourish in Canada. The Confederation pact conferred on the two great Canadian races certain rights as to their schools, their language and their institutions. I again say, let us live not according to the letter, but according to the spirit of that pact. The letter of the law is cold, lifeless, and leads to much misunderstanding. As the dramatist says:
What damned error but some sober brow
Will bless it and approve it with a text?
But the spirit of the law is warm, peacebreathing, life-giving; and whenever these questions arise as to school or language, let us stand not by the cold interpretation, or, rather, falsification of the text, but by that high spiritual motive which animates the words and gives them their true light.
Again I deplore that this Budget is bringing nothing in the way of relief to the consumer from the heavy burden that he is now bearing, and that it has to admit such a lamentable situation so far as the condition of our financial affairs is concerned. The Government say that the country as a whole is prosperous and that the people are satisfied. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the kind of prosperity and satisfaction that the Canadian people are asking for and that they are entitled to? The Canadian people want prosperity, not a prosperity locked up in vaults, bank safes and cold storages, but a prosperity that will flow like the rays of the sun on every humble citizen of this Dominion. The Canadian people want peace-not a peace written in books or laws, enclosed in cryptograms which only few can decipher, but a peace that will live, that will rise and blossom in the hearts of every one. That peace,
that prosperity, the present Government have failed lamentably to bring about. They have had to face hard times and grave difficulties, but they have met them with a weak mind, an empty heart and a false purpose. And the Canadian people are longing for the time when it will be given them to elect new representatives and to choose a Government for this country more worthy of its great destiny and the gravity of the hour.


Mr. W. A. BUCHANAN (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, if it is not out of place, might I be permitted to observe-and I think I am voicing the opinion of hon. members on this side of the House-that there has been a distinct addition to the debating talent of this House by reason of the election for the constituency of St. James, of the hon. gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Rinfret). I do not think that I can say that everybody agrees with all that he has said, but I desire to make these remarks, because my hon. friend and myself have been companions in arms in the past and I have a very friendly feeling towards, him anid I knew that if he ever came into this House, he would be able to hold his own in debate. I desired to pay this tribute to-night before commencing to make the remarks I intend to offer on the Budget.
First of all, I am going to pay this tribute to the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), that he was at least heroic and courageous in the Budget which he introduced, and I am not going to offer any serious objections to his taxation proposals, because I am one who, I think, during the time I have been in this House, has consistently advocated the removal of certain forms of taxation. But I realized all along that if J advocated those things and they came about, we had to introduce another form of taxation, and that form of taxation had to he direct. I might criticise the expenditure that has been made by this Government and the previous Government. I might say that this Government is not practising economy as it should practise it; but I must realize this fact that Canada to-day has very heavy financial obligations, and it is the duty of Canada to meet those obligations, and the duty of this Parliament in some form or other to adopt means of taxtion that will raise the necessary money for that purpose.
During the war I think we should have imposed greater taxation upon the people, because I feel that many people, during that period, were better able to pay taxes to this country than some of them are at the present time. If we had done that, we

might have been able t-o face the period after the commencement of peace with a much smaller debt than we have now. At any rate these proposals have been made for the purpose of meeting our financial obligations, and as long as the money that is raised by this taxation goes toward that purpose, I am prepared to support that taxation, although I must confess that I agree with some of the criticisms which have been offered, that in some instances, at any rate, these proposals do not hit at luxuries but at actual necessities-. But where these taxes hit at actual luxuries, I am in favour of them and am prepared to defend them.
All of us, I suppose, cry for economy in the administration of the affairs of the country, but I find that most of us contradict ourselves by frequently placing before the Government claims for the expenditure of money. It is our duty at this time to demand only absolutely necessary expenditure upon those things that will be helpful to the development of this Dominion, and we should refrain from expenditures upon what we can safely call unnecessary things.
It is not my intention tq make a lengthy speech, but- I feel it is my duty as a member of this House to state clearly and distinctly my views on the tariff proposals contained in the Budget. I am quite in -accord with the attitude the Government have taken in removing the war taxes. The more of these taxes they remove, the more I shall be inclined to favour the Government; but at the same time I feel I aan standing to-night at the parting of the ways as regards my views in connection with the tariff, and I want to give my reasons foT my -stand along that line. Ever since I came into this House I have been a supporter of a low tariff; I have never at any time advocated free trade; nor have I at any time advocated moderate protection; but I thought, and I still think, that the reasonable policy to advocate is a low tariff and a tariff directed primarily for the raising of revenue and not -for the purpose of protecting industries in this country. That is still my view and 1 want to be consistent with my record in the past in directing the course I intend to take ias regards the Budget at this time. I -might be able to support the taxation proposals, but it has been made clear to me during this debate that whatever revision of the tariff is to come is to be a revision that is going to maintain protection; and I would be inclined -to say that the moderate protection that is being advocated really means high protection, because I have here the words of the Minister of

Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Balla-ntyne) in quoting the increased tariff in Australia. The minister made this observation, after quoting the items;
That will serve to show what our sister Dominion is doing. Australia evidently believes in a policy of moderate protection.
And the items that the minister was quoting >n regard to Australia showed that Australia was increasing its tariff. Consequently, if moderate piotection means an increase in the tariff, I cannot be in sympathy with moderate protection. I do not think this Government looks to a man to support them through thick and thin on every policy they introduce. I was not elected to this House under any such consideration. When I appealed to the people of my crnstituency in 1917, I told them that I was standing for a war policy and a war Government; and when I was asked where I stood on the tariff, I told them that I stood where I had always stood, namely, in favour of a low tariff and I did not intend to 'ary my position in that regard, but tbal I did not think the tariff should l-e any c nnsideration daring the war and it was my intention to support Union Government And I did so during the period of war. But as I said ;n speaking on the Address at the opening of this session, I felt that as regards the tariff and other domestic policies, I was free to act in the way that I considered to be in the best interests of the country and in accord with the course I had always followed on this particular question.
Coming to a consideration of the Budget, I might say this, that the points the amendment aims at I am in sympathy with. Anything that will tend to reduce the cost of living cr anything that will tend to encourage pioduction in this country has my support and sympathy, and I feel that a reduction in the tariff aims in those directions. Why, I have the words of my good friend1 the Minister of Marine and Fisheries-anid he is -my good friend, although 1 cannot agree wth him in his views on the tariff-that the removal of the war tax of 7i per cent will tend io reduce the cost of living. When he was speaking on the Budget he stated, that tie accusation of the hon. imemiber for Brome (Mr. MeMaster) that this Government had not done anything to reduce the cost of living was untrue, because fhe removal of the 7i per cent war tax will lessen the cost ot living, let us i educe the tariff still *'u rther on the necessaries oi life, and thus further reduce the

cost of living. That is my stand on the tariff
As to the whole question of protection, I do not want to see any industry in this country driven out of business. I have -been told time and again, and I have heard it claimed on the floor of this House, that protection was primarily intended for the infant industries of this country. Now I might be influenced to support -protection if it was for that purpose; but when I find that the industries of this country have been in the Infants' Home practically from 1878 until the present time, I reach the conclusion that the industries never pass the infantile stage, they are in that stage always. Now I do feel this, that our industries in this country should be well enough organized and should be able to put by sufficient reserves, after a period of protection, in order to face outside competition. They should not expect protection for all time to come, and I think the time is ripe now to cut away a great deal of that protection.
In regard to the question of the development of our natural resources and their connection with the tariff, I have urged this matter on previous occasions, and I urge it again now, that i: by the removal of the tariff we can make the implements of production cheaper and thereby encourage the development of our natural resources we are doing something worth while for this country. It is the development of our natural resources that we desire at the present time because the development of those resources will enrich Canada and enable it to meet its pressing obligations. What do I find in the province of Alberta? Men are going out, individuals and companies, and spending thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars in an effort to find oil in that province. But practically everything they use in the operations to discover oil is taxed. Now I do not think in a case of that kind, vrfhere there is an attempt to develop our natural resources, and where if oil was found it would mean millions of dollars to this country, that those implements should be taxed any more than the implements used by the farmers who also are engaged in the development of our natural resources. I have a case in point, a local one, which I should like to give in this connection. In the section of Alberta from which flj come many acres are devoted to the production of Alfalfa. Except for an exceptional year like last year when there was a shortage of feed throughout Western Canada I would say that there
was a surplus of alfalfa produced in that section, and men who realize that with the development of. irrigation there is going to be a large increase in the alfalfa area are looking for some other purpose to use that alfalfa. An enterprising gentleman in my , constituency decided he would go into the alfalfa milling business in order to produce a meal that could be used for stock feeding. He wrote to me wanting to find out whether he could get a certain machine for -that particular purpose into Canada free of duty. It was -a machine that was not produced in Canada and was for -the purpose of utilizing one of our own resources and making it profitable, and encouraging the development of the alfalfa area on irrigated land. This particular machine, an alfalfa grinder, valued at about $4,000, I found, was subject to a duty of 20 per cent, or nearly $800. That was a tax on what I would call a productive implement necessary for the development of our resources in Western Canada.
Briefly I feel, as I indicated before, that whatever revision of the tariff is contemplated is to be along the lines of protection. And when we speak of moderate protection I would say that it means sufficient protection at least to satisfy the industries of this country, and I have not yet been converted to the view that adequate protection or moderate protection for protection's sake only is desirable in this country. Consequently, under these circumstances, I cannot commit myself to a proposition inconsistent with the atttiude I have taken in this House from the beginning. I feel therefore it is my duty to go on record now as being in favour of a reduction of the tariff, and for that reason I intend to support the amendment of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding).
Before taking my seat I would like to point out to the Government a matter that I think is worthy of some attention, and again it is a case which comes from the section of the country which I represent, but I think it is important to the whole country. We are very anxious to develop our export trade and I think it should be -the business of this Government-I am not complaining that they are not pursuing this policy-to widen our markets all over the *world, and wherever we can get a footing in a new market we should get it, and get it as soon as possible. I feel that on the Pacific we have opportunities for the development of a great deal of trade with Canada if we only keep our eyes open and get after that trade. We did have a trade in flour

with Hong Kong, and I think it is worth mentioning that one mill alone in the city where I live exported in 1912 to Hong Kong and Shanghai 155,901 bags of flour, in 1913, 182,404 bags of flour and in 1914, 101,196 bags of flour. When the war broke out that market dropped until there was practically nothing shipped in the other years. I am told by millers at the present time it is practically impossible to get into that market, by reason of an order of the Wheat Board. The Wheat Board says it will only issue a permit to ship to Hong Kong on receipt of a regular application form, accompanied by a cheque for $2 a barrel refund to the board. The millers claim that the $2 a barrel refund demand practically keeps them out of that Oriental market. It may surprise the House to know how much flour has been shipped from Australia to fHong Kong and Shanghai. The importer who writes this letter in the correspondence that has been submitted to me says that practically all this market is open to Canada and could be used by Canada at the .present time. He says:
Yet in spite of all the difficulties, shipping and so forth, this market (the Hong Kong market) imported 1,200,000 bags of Australian flour last year and will probably continue importing large quantities.
What I want to point out is this : Seemingly from this order of our Wheat Board we are unable to ship flour to Hong Kong in competition with other countries and we .are losing a market we formerly had. Now I am not in a position to condemn offhand the Wheat Board. There is a great difference of opinion as to the Wheat Board. I am not a farmer or a miller, but it seems to me that in this case that particular policy is not in the interests of the milling trade of Canada any more than it is in the interests of the export trade of Canada, and this situation should be remedied if we want to build up with the Pacific countries a large export trade.
I have attempted to outline as briefly as possible my views on the Budget. I might ,say again that I am merely attempting to be consistent with the course that I have always taken on the tariff. I have noticed [DOT]during this debate that there has been some criticism of other hon. members for their lack of consistency. Well, I may be inconsistent on some other questions, but on [DOT]the tariff I think I can claim I have always been consistent, and it is merely to be consistent, and to continue to be consistent [DOT]until I am enlightened that I am wrong, that I am taking the course I have announced to-night.


Mr. ROCH LANCTOT (Laprairie-Napier-ville) (translation):: This is not the trade this country wants for future generations.
I hope we shall have no more such ware, and that we shall, not be looking to the manufacture of war munitions for success-full business.
The Finance Minister told ns also that his Budget will turn out $388,000,000 in the course of the current year. I have no objection to that, Mir. Speaker; on the contrary I am glad for him, hut I would like very much to see a decrease in expenditures. If every year, the Minister of Finance, whoever he be,, comes and asks us for $70,000,000 more taxes, and if it is only for the coterie, for the ministerial family, I object. I my the ministerial family because I find things going on in Ottawa which make me gasp. The Government for the last four years has been taxing the people at every turn, even compelling them to affix stamps on a.Ll articles of commerce, cheques, notes, contracts. I fear that our poor people will Jong remain in that state of misery. I was not a little scandalized *last week; as I was going to leave this building,. I saw four or five ministers, in company with some twenty members, who were waiting for automobiles to go and have a ride in town. There is no dioubt but Johnny Canuck will have to pay for that.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Oh, yes, indeed.


Roch Lanctôt: I. object
to that, especially in these hard times. Nowadays the ministers indulge in endless journeys.
Mr. MieMASTER (Translation): They are great travellers.


Roch Lanctôt: They are
travellers. Some of them are always sick so as to travel about. I sincerely wish they would return to health so they would return to us and stay.
Now, let us see what took place at- the Peace Conference, at Versailles. We had there four ministers and many other people, and all their expenses were paid by the country. Now, we are asked to send a messenger to Washington, at the expense of our poor people.


Ernest Lapointe: A messenger?


Roch Lanctôt: A messenger to the
English ambassador, nothing else. I hope they will not send a sick man; for a mes-
[Mr. LanctOt.J
senger must needs be in good health, so as to be able to face rain or shine.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Hear,
hear.


Roch Lanctôt: I think
the president of the Council is robust enough to fill the position.
The people are not aware of these things. If they were acquainted with what is going on in Ottawa, I often ask myself if they would go to the polls at the beck of a Government who, after making so many promises to our soldiers, to our veterans of the Great War, refuse to pay small pensions to them or their widows and orphans, while the Government's favorites, the privileged ones, receive large pensions. For the soldiers who made war for the Empire,, no pensions. Perhaps before the end of the session we shall hear of our judges not being paid enough. A pension will be offered them. While on this subject I wish to say this: I want our judges to be well paid. I have no objection to see a judge being generously paid while he works; but I certainly object to seeing a judge receive more after he iis superannuated than he did when he was on the bench.


Mr.   GANNON@: There are no such cases.


Roch Lanctôt: 
Andrew Ross McMaster: Shame!
M. MACKIE (Translation): What class do you belong to?


Roch Lanctôt: To the farmer class.


Mr. MACKIE (Translation):: That of the opportunists.


Roch Lanctôt: I don't
think so.
Now, Sir,, the Government want money from right and left and it will be the same with .them next year. Millions are wanted for the militia. There are $12,000,000 for it in the Estimates this year; but if they were to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat), $50,000,000 would be the figure required. Happily I

have no idea that the hon. member's suggestion will be accepted by the House. However there is a scheme on foot which seems to be making its way. I don't know that it will reach realization this year. At any rate, it is said that the Mother Country is to make us a gift; it seems that it wants to present us with war ships.
So far as I am concerned I must say to the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries that I am a man of peace who wants peace; we have had enough warfare and I, for one, do not want the Government to accept the gift of a navy. Let me make a comparison. Take for instance a labourer in St. Constant where I reside. There are large brickyards in the neighbourhood, at Del son. Well supposing the Government or .anybody else goes to one of my constituents working in one of these yards and said to him: "I am going to give you a Ford, or a Dodge or any other motor car". That, man never drove an automobile before; he would require a chauffeur and he would have to buy gasoline. Do you think he would be in a better position than he is now? Not at all. The Government say: "We shall not buy the ships". Very well, because we have not the means to buy them; but if they are given to us, we shall have to get coal and men to get up steam and that will cost a lot of money. We do not want it.
I am told that some of our ministers will not be satisfied with the militia and a navy, and that we shall soon have an air force of about 150 aeroplanes. We do not want any such thing for our people to break their neck with and I protest against it.
An hon, MEMBER (Translation): These are airy notions.


Roch Lanctôt: Yes, airy indeed., ais would say the hon. member fo.r Quebec-East.
Mr. Speaker, before concluding, I wish to say a few words about, war, although being a man of peace, I must revert to war. Quite recently I found in my room, the report of the special committee of the House on the Soldiers Civil Re-establishment of last year, and here is what I noticed in it: A government official was asked to make up a statement in order to know how much it would cost to meet the request of the soldiers, namely those who had fought in France, those who remained in England and the others who had served in Canada. The report says that the total number of men registered in our army was 590,000; 418,000 went overseas and 50.000 remained in England ; therefore 368,000 men went over to France and the remaining 172,000 stayed at home, and if you add the 50,000 who remained in England you will see that 222,000 men never went to the front and never smelled powder.
It is on account of that foolish and ruinous policy of the Government that we have to pay the present taxes, and such policy was not worked out in the interest of the people of this country but with a view to winning the election of 1917. Mr. Speaker, in order to win the election in 1917, to get the present government into power, they have spent 500 or 600 millions of the people's money-


Andrew Ross McMaster: It is not worth it.


Roch Lanctôt: - for we did not require conscription in 1916 and 1917, considering the number of soldiers we had in the country and also the fact that nobody in Europe ever expected' that the government should send 500,000 or 600,000, men. It was a means of carrying the elections, and of aiming a blow at the province of Quebec, by shouting: The French Canadians will not enlist. We are going to poison the press and we are sure of beating Lanrier and his Quebec supporters."
I notice, since a few months, that the feeling as regards Ontario is not what it was in 1917.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The
people open their eyes.


Roch Lanctôt: Why have we a third party to-day in this House? It is a result of conscription. The people of Ontario and of the English speaking provinces had been promised through theiir candidates that conscription was not directed against them but against Quebec. However, the Government took every body in and that displeased Ontario. A delegation came here, but the door was closed and they were told that they could not come in. That is how the farmers party was created.
A Toronto newspaper said that I was a party man.
I really have been one of them, I do believe; but if, however, in the future, the political party I have been a member of for a life-time should ever attempt to play the same pranks as are doing the party opposite in this House-


Andrew Ross McMaster: Impossible.	*


Roch Lanctôt: -I would part from it, so much sa.id, Mr. Speaker, it being late, for you as well as for myself, I do not wish to detain the House any longer; I am through with what I intended to say, taxation excepted, which I have not yet touched upon. Whoever breaks the glasses, must- pay the cost; there is no get-ing out of it. But there is one matter I. was forgetting to refer to, Mr. Speaker; we find the big wigs of this country are those who pay the least to the exchequer. I have noticed this evening in reading the newspapers, that the poorer classes would he affected by the new taxation, while the big fellows would get away much more easily. Vou can never get hold of a big wig; he always manages to pull through. When -you lay taxes upon the manufacturer, the wholesale dealer, upon any retail merchant, he simply raises his prices in proportion and Baptiste pays the piper.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): What about the- hay dealers?


Mr. LANOTOT (Translation):: 
Mr. J. E. PREVOST (Terrebonne) (Translation) :: /Mr. Speaker, the Budget 'Speech of this session of 1920 should have been made by the Finance Minister of ,a new Government created by the popular will on an economic platform, duly submitted to the Canadian people, for the purpose of purifying our finances and developing our country after the war. But such is not the 176
case and the Government we have opposite ds ever the same Government that juggled away the 1917 elections, through their ignominous Election Act and their cry of " Win the War."
Well, now the war is over, it has been won, and the Win-the-war Government still clings tiCi power instead of going before the electorate to give an account of its war policy and obtaining from them a new mandate for a policy of peace and of national reconstruction.
The Union Government shuns the day of its rendering of accounts. The Minister of Finance has indeed produced his balance-sheet, but only in this House, where he is assured of a majority, the Government dare not go before the people and submit to it the deeds, or rather the misdeeds, of their administration, for they are well aware of the people's answer. The Government shun their responsibilities; it is one of the features of their character, or to state it in a better form, it is a sure indication of their lack of character.
'Since 1914, the . Government have appointed more than 100 commissioners to do what they should have performed themselves, and yet we had 26 different ministers, a figure that had never been reached previously; in spite of all that commissions have followed upon commissions, subcorn-missions upon suboommissions, without as a rule reaching any solution at all. Every time the Government entrusted any question to a special commission, the said question was sure of a first-class funeral. God knows how many serious questions the Unionist Government have thus solemnly buried! The Government shun their responsibilities. They have proved it by ever shifting to some other party the trouble c.f looking up matters they should have settled themselves, thereby leaving without any remedy all the evils which the Canadian people were then, and are still suffering.
'.I shall not undertake to enumerate the numberless commissions created by the Government since 1914 in order to shirk their responsibilities. The most important is, beyond a doubt, the Board of Oonrmeree which should have assisted in the lowering of the cost of living. Well, since this Board has been appointed, the cost of living has daily increased. The cold storage plants- it has been stated many a time-.are crammed with foodstuffs; the profits of numerous profiteers are scandalous, the profits of certain tradesmen are exorbitant,


Jules-Édouard Prévost: Thursday, May 27, 1920.